Marisela Lozano v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 86 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARISELA LOZANO,

8

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

v.

9

(Re: Docket No. 86)

10

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

12
13

Plaintiff Marisela Lozano moves to compel amended discovery responses from Defendant

14

County of Santa Clara.1 This discovery focuses on whether any of the Eligibility Worker training

15

that Santa Clara contends that she must complete before returning to work has been validated

16

within the meaning of the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.2

17

Lozano argues that whether the training has been UGESP-validated is relevant to a disparate

18

impact theory of disability discrimination.3 But at oral argument earlier today, Lozano admitted

19

that the complaint does not plead facts giving rise to a discrimination claim based on disparate

20

impact, because the disparate impact theory arose during the course of discovery and she has not

21

yet amended her complaint to include it.4

22
23
1

See Docket No. 86.

2

See id. at 4-11.

3

See id.

4

See Docket No. 91.

24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

1

With all the attention paid to the recent amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) regarding

2

proportionality, one might reasonably forget that relevance remains, well, relevant. Put simply,

3

parties must still limit their discovery to claims and defenses at issue in the case. Unless and until

4

Lozano amends her complaint, the UGESP discovery she seeks simply is not relevant to her

5

claims. Lozano’s motion to compel is DENIED.

6

SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: April 19, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
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

2
Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL