Guthmann v. Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re #32 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

STACY GUTHMANN,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:16-cv-02680-LHK (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.
CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 32

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Stacy Guthman sues her former employer, claiming (among other things) that she

19

was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for complaining about wage-and-hour violations. This

20

court understands that defendants own, develop, and operate residential communities for older

21

adults. Just prior to her termination, Guthman says she intervened in a dispute between two

22

residents and claims that she followed defendants’ policies in reporting one resident’s abusive

23

conduct. According to the complaint, plaintiff was placed on administrative leave the next day

24

and subsequently was fired for elder abuse. Plaintiff says she was told that defendants contacted

25

an “Ombudsperson” who conducted an investigation and concluded that she had engaged in elder

26

abuse. Plaintiff claims that the investigation was a sham and that the alleged “elder abuse” was

27

simply a pretext for terminating her employment. Defendants deny any wrongdoing.

28

Guthman claims that thus far, discovery reveals that the resident did not complain about

1

elder abuse and that the Ombudsman was not contacted by the resident or the residential facility

2

and did not investigate any complaint. This court is told that, although discovery indicates that

3

someone might have contacted the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, Adult Protective

4

Services (APS), defendants reportedly have not produced documents that show whether and why

5

they may have contacted APS.

6

So, plaintiff subpoenaed APS for any records relating to allegations of elder abuse and
incidents and persons connected to this case. On April 7, she filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report

8

(DDJR) 1 because APS has a one-page responsive document, but declines to produce it absent a

9

court order, citing its obligations to keep information in the document confidential. See 42 U.S.C.

10

§ 30581i(b)(10)(D) & (e)(2); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15633, 15633.5. However, APS does not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

oppose production of the document if, following an in camera review, this court concludes that the

12

need for disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in keeping the information confidential.

13

Plaintiff argues that she cannot obtain the record from any other source.

14

Pursuant to this court’s interim order re DDJR 1 (Dkt. 33), APS submitted the document to

15

the court for an in camera review. Having reviewed the document, this court orders the document

16

produced, subject to the terms of the stipulated protective order (Dkt. 20). Although APS

17

identifies a legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information in the document

18

(i.e., to encourage the reporting of elder abuse), this court also takes into account that the subject

19

information appears to be highly material to plaintiff’s allegations. And, given what this court has

20

been told about the present state of discovery, it may be that the APS document is the only

21

documentation of the information plaintiff seeks. Additionally, this court finds that the terms of

22

the stipulated protective order are adequate to protect the subject information. Accordingly,

23

plaintiff’s request for this discovery is granted. APS shall forthwith produce the document to

24

plaintiff.

25

SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: April 12, 2017

27
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2

1

5:16-cv-02680-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Erica Christina Gonzalez

3

Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones

4

Jennifer Nicole Lutz

5

Kendra Lin Orr

6

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Paul Joseph Smoot

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
Peter Collins McMahon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

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
3