Newton v. Equilon Enterprises LLC DBA Shell Oil Products US

Filing 109

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS; DENYING MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. denying 72 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 82 Administrative Mo tion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 96 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 97 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 98 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and den ying in part 99 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 100 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 101 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 102 Discovery Letter Brief; gra nting in part and denying in part 103 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 104 Discovery Letter Brief. Discovery Hearing set for 8/29/2018 09:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CIARA NEWTON,
7

Plaintiff,
8

vs.

Case No.: 17-cv-3961-YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY
REQUESTS; DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

9

EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC DBA SHELL OIL
10

PRODUCTS US,

DKT. NOS. 72, 82, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,
103, 104

11

Defendant.
Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Defendant Equilon Enterprises, LLC dba Shell Oil Products US filed its Motion for Summary
13

Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment on July 18, 2018. (Dkt. No. 72.)
14

Plaintiff Ciara Newton filed her opposition to the motion on July 31, 2018. (Dkt. No. 83 and
15
16
17

supporting papers).1 A hearing on the motion occurred on August 21, 2018, during which the parties
provided additional argument.
In addition, the parties submitted discovery letters concerning matters as to which plaintiff

18
19
20

sought additional responses. (Dkt. Nos. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104.) The Court heard
the parties’ arguments as to these discovery disputes at the hearing on August 21, 2018, as well.
On these pending matters, the Court ORDERS as follows:

21
22

I.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

23

Having carefully considered the briefing, admissible evidence, and arguments submitted in

24

support of and in opposition to this motion, and for the reasons set forth in full detail on the record,

25

defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment is

26

DENIED. As set forth on the record, there are triable issues of material fact as to each of plaintiff’s

27
28

1

Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to seal in connection with her opposition, indicating
that defendant had designated certain documents as confidential. (Dkt. No. 82.) Defendant offered
no declaration in support of sealing. The Court, finding no compelling reasons for sealing the
documents in connection with the summary judgment motion, DENIES the motion to seal.

1

claims, precluding summary adjudication. With respect to summary adjudication of the claim for

2

punitive damages, despite significant weaknesses in plaintiff’s evidence in opposition, the motion

3

cannot be granted because defendant, as the moving party, has failed to meet its evidentiary burden

4

on this issue. Davis v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 220 Cal. App. 4th 358, 369 (2013) (a moving defendant

5

“cannot satisfy its initial burden of production of evidence by making a conclusory statement of law,

6

whether directly or through a declaration of one of its employees . . . . by simply restating the

7

applicable legal standard under White for the determination of whether [an employee] was its

8

managing agent, [defendant] did not satisfy its initial burden of production.”).

9

II.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16

DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Having carefully considered the letter briefs and arguments of the parties, and for the reasons

set forth in full detail on the record, plaintiff’s requests are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART:2
The request to compel a further response to Request for Production Nos. 101, 107, 109, 110,
114, 132, 144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 161, 163, and 164, is GRANTED. Further responses and
responsive documents are ordered to be produced to plaintiff no later than August 27, 2018.
The request to compel a further response to Request for Production Nos. 118, 156, 157, and

17

162 is DENIED.
18

With respect to Request for Production Nos. 158 and 159, the Court RESERVES. Defendant is
19

directed to provide supplemental information regarding the number of persons hired to be refinery
20

process operators at the Martinez facility at any time from January 1, 2006, to the present who were
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

terminated during their probationary periods. Defendant shall provide the number by email to
chambers, [e-mail], no later than close of business on Friday, August 24, 2018.
The request to compel further responses to plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 4, 8, and 9 is
GRANTED. Further responses are ordered to be produced to plaintiff no later than August 27, 2018.
The request to compel further responses to plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11is
DENIED.
2

In addition, the Court sanctioned each lawyer for failure to comply with the Court’s
Standing Order as it relates to discovery disputes. (Dkt. Nos. 105, 106.)
2

1

The parties are directed to file, no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 28, 2018, a

2

joint notice stating whether all further discovery responses and responsive documents ordered to be

3

produced by August 27, 2018 have been received by plaintiff. If all responses and responsive

4

documents ordered to be produced have not been received by plaintiff, the Court will hold a further

5

hearing on Wednesday, August 29, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

6

If defendant is unable to provide a further response and responsive documents with respect to

7

Request for Production Nos. 145, Cameron Curran will be REQUIRED TO APPEAR to provide

8

testimony with respect to his knowledge and basis for asserting that plaintiff falsified records in the

9

Intellitrack system. The Court may also inquire, if necessary, as to Request for Production Nos. 153

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

and 154 and Interrogatories 4, 8, and 9.
This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 72, 82, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, and 104.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 22, 2018
_______________________________________

14

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3