Moody v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 86

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 Discovery Disputes re Plaintiff's Document Requests. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
DON MOODY,

8

Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.15-cv-04378-EJD (VKD)

Defendants.

12

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
RE PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENT
REQUESTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85

13

The parties have submitted to the Court four discovery disputes regarding plaintiff Don

14

Moody’s requests for production of documents to the County of Santa Clara (“County”). Dkt.

15

Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and finds the disputes are

16

suitable for resolution without oral argument.
As explained below, the Court resolves each dispute in the County’s favor.

17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
Mr. Moody is the former Public Guardian for the County. He served in that position for

20

six years, from September 2008 until he was placed on leave, with a recommendation for his

21

termination, in September 2014. Dkt. No. 52 ¶¶ 17, 32. Mr. Moody claims that he was

22

immediately required to turn over his badge and work phone and was escorted out of the building

23

where he worked, in full view of the public and co-workers, leading others to conclude wrongly

24

that he was untrustworthy. Id. ¶¶ 34, 39.

25

Mr. Moody’s employment subsequently was terminated. He alleges that defendants leaked

26

information to the media about his termination and his “walkout.” Id. ¶¶ 36-38. He says he never

27

witnessed anyone else in his office terminated in this fashion and alleges that he was stigmatized

28

by this treatment. Id. ¶ 39. He claims that, as a result, he was unable to find other full-time

1

employment for about a year after his termination and still has not found work in his chosen

2

profession. Id. ¶ 43.
Although a Skelly hearing1 was held prior to his termination, Mr. Moody claims that he

3
4

was not allowed to introduce evidence, call or cross-examine witnesses, or obtain testimony under

5

oath. Id. ¶ 41. Because the hearing would result in an internal, non-publicized decision, Mr.

6

Moody further claims that the Skelly hearing was insufficient to clear his name. Id. He also

7

contends that the appeal of his termination was insufficient and failed to comport with due process

8

because the appeal hearing did not occur until over 20 months after his termination and “walkout.”

9

Id. ¶ 42.
Mr. Moody filed this suit against the County and Bruce Wagstaff, the Director of the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

County’s Social Services Agency who recommended Mr. Moody’s termination. The operative

12

Second Amended Complaint asserted two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) a procedural due

13

process claim challenging the adequacy of Mr. Moody’s Skelly hearing and appeal hearing, and

14

(2) a substantive due process claim based on the alleged “walkout” and leak to the press of

15

negative information about Mr. Moody. Id. ¶¶ 44-64, 65-69.
The Court dismissed Mr. Moody’s procedural due process claim without leave to amend,

16
17

finding that Mr. Moody failed to plausibly allege that he did not receive a constitutionally

18

adequate name-clearing hearing to challenge the basis for his termination. Dkt. No. 59 at 7-9.

19

Thus, Mr. Moody’s sole remaining claim for relief is one for alleged deprivation of his substantive

20

due process rights.
With respect to his substantive due process claim, Mr. Moody asserts that defendants

21
22

deprived him of his property interest in continued employment with the County, as well as his

23

liberty interest in the right to work in his chosen profession, by publicly humiliating him when

24

they allegedly escorted him out of the building where he worked and leaked negative information

25

about him and his termination to the press. Dkt. No. 52 ¶¶ 65-69; Dkt. No. 51 at 14-15.

26
27
28

1

See Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal. 3d 194, 215 (1975) (discussing requirements for pretermination hearing for a public employee).
2

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A party may obtain discovery of any matter that is relevant to a claim or defense and that is

2
3

“proportional to the needs of case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’

4
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
5

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For

6
good cause shown, the Court may also issue an order protecting a party or person from annoyance,
7
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, and may order the discovery produced in
8
a manner that restricts its disclosure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); 37(a)(5)(C).
9
10

III.

DISCUSSION
The parties’ joint submissions address four discovery disputes, which the Court considers

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

separately.
12
13

A.

Dkt. No. 82: Media Communications

Mr. Moody seeks “all documents and communications regarding any discussions,

14
statements given or elicited, questions asked by, or correspondence with media outlets by the
15
County between 2008 and 2015 in connection with [the Department of Adult Aging Services
16

(“DAAS”)] or [the Social Services Agency (“SSA”)].” Dkt. No. 82, Ex. A (Request No. 18). Mr.

17
Moody contends that this discovery is relevant because it may show that defendants have a pattern
18
or practice of treating other employees or Public Guardians the same way they treated Mr. Moody.
19
The County objects to this discovery on relevance and proportionality grounds. It
20
acknowledges that Mr. Moody is entitled to discovery regarding actions or statements by the
21
County that could have impacted his ability to be re-employed in his chosen profession, and it says
22

that it has already produced all communications with media outlets concerning Mr. Moody’s

23
termination. The County argues that documents relating to communications concerning the
24

DAAS and the SSA dating back to 2008, unrelated to Mr. Moody’s termination, are irrelevant to

25
any claim or defense in the case, and that the burden of identifying and producing such responsive
26
documents would require the review of email communications for thousands of County
27
employees.
28
3

1

The Court is not persuaded that the discovery Mr. Moody seeks is relevant to his

2

substantive due process claim. Mr. Moody’s request is exceptionally broad, and he does not

3

explain how discovery of all of defendants’ communications “in connection with DAAS or SSA,”

4

regardless of subject matter, is relevant to his claim. Mr. Moody makes a very abbreviated

5

argument that the discovery will show whether the County had a pattern or practice of improper

6

conduct. However, Mr. Moody’s objective is at odds with and undermined by his allegations that

7

no other employees have been treated as he has. See Dkt. No. 52 ¶¶ 39, 67. In any event, the

8

scope of the requested discovery is not limited to even this purported pattern or practice evidence.
Mr. Moody argues that the County has waived any objections based on proportionality, but

10

does not otherwise address defendants’ contention that the requested discovery poses an excessive

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

burden. Mr. Moody’s waiver argument is inconsistent with the approach to discovery adopted in

12

the recent amendments to Rule 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes

13

(2015 Amendment) (“The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the

14

proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”); see also Hon.

15

Elizabeth D. Laporte & Jonathan M. Redgrave, A Practical Guide to Achieving Proportionality

16

Under New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, 9 FED. COURTS L. REV. 20, 67-69 (2015). As the

17

discovery Mr. Moody seeks is not relevant to any claim or defense, the Court need not reach the

18

question of proportionality.

19
20

The County need not search for and produce responsive documents beyond those it says it
has already agreed to produce.

21

B.

22

Mr. Moody seeks “all documents and communications that relate to the procedures used to

Dkt. No. 83: Hiring Procedures

23

bring on new employees to County, including, but not limited to, training requirements,

24

orientations, materials provided to new employees, oaths, or meetings with key personnel.” Dkt.

25

No. 83, Ex. A (Request No. 25). He argues that the discovery is relevant because it is likely to

26

yield evidence that defendants “scapegoated” him for problems that plagued the Public Guardian’s

27

Office prior to his employment there, and that, at a minimum, responsive documents concerning

28

him and his predecessors dating back to 1998 should be produced.
4

1

The County objects to this discovery on relevance and proportionality grounds. It argues

2

that the discovery Mr. Moody seeks with respect to all employees of the County is overbroad, has

3

no bearing on whether Mr. Moody’s substantive due process rights were violated, and is not

4

proportional to the needs of the case. According to the County, it would have to search hundreds

5

of classifications for more than 17,000 employees, across dozens of physical locations in order to

6

produce responsive documents.

7

The Court agrees with the County that Mr. Moody’s discovery is directed to the propriety

8

of the County’s termination decision and not to whether the County stigmatized Mr. Moody in

9

connection with his termination. Mr. Moody dismisses this argument as posing “a question for
trial,” but he does not actually explain how the discovery is relevant to the substantive due process

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claim pled in the operative complaint. In particular, Mr. Moody does not explain how discovery

12

regarding his own hiring, training, and orientation or the hiring, training, and orientation of other

13

County employees has anything to do with the County’s stigmatizing conduct with respect to his

14

termination

15

As before, Mr. Moody argues that the County has waived any objections based on

16

proportionality, but does not otherwise address defendants’ contention that the requested

17

discovery poses an excessive burden. Mr. Moody’s waiver argument is unpersuasive for the

18

reasons discussed above. However, as the discovery Mr. Moody seeks is not relevant to any claim

19

or defense, the Court need not reach the question of proportionality.

20

The County need not search for and produce documents responsive to this request.

21

C.

22

Mr. Moody requests all documents relating to a series of investigations or audits of the

Dkt. No. 84: Investigative Reports

23

Public Guardian’s Office, dating back to 1998, as well as the actions taken in response to the

24

reports generated as a result of those investigations and inquiries. Dkt. No. 84, Ex. A (Requests

25

Nos. 1-4, 6-9). He contends that this discovery is relevant to his “scapegoat” theory, i.e., if the

26

County was aware of systemic problems in the Public Guardian’s Office, pre-dating Mr. Moody’s

27

employment, then this discovery is relevant to establish that defendants used Mr. Moody as a

28

scapegoat.
5

1

The County objects to this discovery on relevance and proportionality grounds. It argues

2

that evidence concerning investigations into the operations of the Public Guardian’s Office—two

3

of which predate Mr. Moody’s employment with that office—has no bearing on the question of

4

whether the County stigmatized Mr. Moody in connection with his termination. The County again

5

observes that Mr. Moody’s substantive due process claim concerns the manner in which his

6

termination was carried out, and not whether the County’s decision to terminate his employment

7

was wrong or unfair. The County also says the discovery is not proportional to the needs of the

8

case, but it does not point to any particular burden.

9

The Court agrees with the County that Mr. Moody’s discovery is directed to the propriety
of the County’s termination decision and not to whether the County terminated Mr. Moody in a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

manner that stigmatized him. Mr. Moody again dismisses this argument as posing “a question for

12

trial,” but he does not explain how the discovery is relevant to the substantive due process claim

13

pled in the operative complaint. In particular, Mr. Moody does not explain how anything in the

14

investigative reports (or in the County’s actions in response to those reports) might bear on the

15

manner in which he was terminated and whether he was stigmatized by the County’s conduct.

16

The County has not supported its argument that the discovery Mr. Moody seeks is

17

disproportionate or burdensome, but as the discovery is not relevant to any claim or defense, the

18

Court need not reach the question of proportionality.

19

The County need not search for and produce documents responsive to this request.

20

D.

21

Mr. Moody seeks all documents relating to the termination of his predecessor, Robert

Dkt. No. 85: Other Public Guardians

22

Cecil, as well as all documents relating to the job performance of prior Public Guardians from

23

1998 to the present. Dkt. Nos. 85, Ex. A (Requests Nos. 21, 22). Again, he contends that this

24

discovery is relevant to his “scapegoat” theory, i.e., if the County was aware of systemic problems

25

in the Public Guardian’s Office, pre-dating Mr. Moody’s employment, then this discovery is

26

relevant to establish that defendants used Mr. Moody as a scapegoat.

27
28

The County objects to this discovery on relevance and proportionality grounds, and also
objects that the discovery violates the privacy interests of third parties (other Public Guardians). It
6

1

argues that Mr. Moody seeks evidence to challenge the County’s underlying decision to terminate

2

his employment, and not to support is substantive due process claim challenging the manner of his

3

termination. The County further argues that Mr. Moody has not articulated a compelling need for

4

this discovery that would outweigh the privacy interests of prior Public Guardians in their

5

personnel records.
The Court agrees with the County that Mr. Moody’s discovery is directed to the propriety

6
7

of the County’s termination decision and not to whether the County terminated Mr. Moody in a

8

manner that stigmatized him. Mr. Moody does not explain how personnel records concerning the

9

performance and reasons for termination of other Public Guardians have any bearing on whether
defendants’ conduct with respect to his own termination violated his substantive due process

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

rights. In any event, Mr. Moody has not made a showing of relevance with respect to these

12

records that outweighs the interest the County and its employees have in preserving the

13

confidentiality of sensitive information contained in employee personnel records. See Nakagawa

14

v. Regents of Univ. of California, No. C06-2066 SI, 2008 WL 1808902, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22,

15

2008) (citing Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 440 U.S. 301, 319 n.16 (1979)).

16

The County has not supported its argument that the discovery Mr. Moody seeks is

17

disproportionate or burdensome, but as the discovery is not relevant to any claim or defense, the

18

Court need not reach the question of proportionality.
The County need not search for and produce documents responsive to this request.

19
20

IV.

CONCLUSION

21

Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Moody’s motion for discovery.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: July 23, 2019

24
25
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
7