Marisela Lozano v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 53

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 34 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARISELA LOZANO,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 34)

10

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD

12
Plaintiff Marisela Lozano moves to compel amended discovery responses from Defendant

13
14

County of Santa Clara.1 Based on the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs and at oral

15

argument, Lozano’s motion is GRANTED-IN-PART as follows:

16



Requests for Admission Nos. 2, 5, 32: Lozano’s motion is DENIED as to RFAs Nos. 2, 5,

17

and 32, because these RFAs improperly seek to establish disputed legal issues and have the

18

County admit Lozano’s characterizations of the law regarding her disability status and various

19

medical documents.2

20



Request for Production No. 2: The County shall produce organizational charts for the DEBS

21

department within the SSA organization. All other relief as to this request is DENIED as

22

overbroad and disproportionate to the claims and defenses in this case.

23



Request for Production No. 15: The County represented that it has provided all responsive,
non-privileged documents from March to October 2014, the period that Nancy Clark was

24
25
1

See Docket No. 34.

2

See Docket No. 38 at 12-14.

26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL

acting as EOD Manager rather than Deputy County Counsel.3 This request is DENIED.

1
2



Request for Production No. 39: The County has offered to stipulate that an alternative

3

employment position existed that Lozano was qualified for, if Lozano proves that she was

4

disabled under the Americans with Disability Act.4 The County shall tender this stipulation.

5

This stipulation is sufficient to answer the question of whether one or more jobs were available

6

that Lozano was qualified for, and so her motion is DENIED as to this request.

7



Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8: Lozano is entitled to discovery regarding the “me, too” evidence
sought by these interrogatories.5 However, all discovery must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

26(b)’s strictures on proportionality and weighing the relative burden and benefit of the

10

requested discovery. The County therefore shall identify all persons within the DEBS

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

department within the SSA organization that (1) requested an accommodation for a medical

12

condition from January 1, 2005 to the present; (2) were denied the requested accommodation;

13

and (3) appealed that denial to the Equal Opportunity Department. All other requested relief is

14

insufficiently proportionate to justify the burden that responding would place on the non-

15

parties that filed claims.

16



interrogatory, but only as to claims filed by DEBS employees within the SSA organization.

17
18

Interrogatory No. 9: As with Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8, the County shall respond to this



Interrogatory No. 10: The County shall either (1) stipulate to the admissibility of its
previously produced spreadsheet of job vacancies and identify the author of the spreadsheet; or

19
20
21

3

See Docket No. 51 at 28:4-29:2.

22

4

See id. at 14:3-15:6.

23

5

24
25
26
27
28

See, e.g., Foster v. ScentAir Techs., Inc., Case No. 13-CV-05772-TEH(MEJ), 2014 WL
4063160, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014) (holding that “me, too” evidence may be relevant in a
discrimination and harassment suit, but denying plaintiff’s request for access to confidential
personnel records for failure to show a compelling need); Goold v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Case
No. 1:13-CV-00438 JLT, 2014 WL 1383252, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014) (granting plaintiff’s
motion to compel discovery of “me, too” evidence in discrimination case because such evidence
may be admissible to demonstrate motive).
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL

(2) respond to the interrogatory.

1
2
3



Interrogatory No. 11: The County’s proffered stipulation as to Request for Production No. 39
also satisfies this interrogatory, and so all relief as to this interrogatory is DENIED.

4

All materials and discovery required by this order shall be produced within 14 days.

5

SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: December 2, 2015

7
8

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL