2016-00199813-CU-WT

Jamileff Haywood vs. Twin Rivers Unified School District

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Williams, Amy E.

Defendant Twin Rivers Unified School District’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jamileff Haywood to provide further responses to requests for production is ruled upon as follows.

In this employment action Plaintiff, a former teacher’s assistant with Defendant, alleges claims for whistleblower retaliation based on complaints of alleged violations of Head Start regulations. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for reporting the violations.

At issue on the instant motion are Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production nos.

1-3, 5, 15-17, 19-22.

The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s argument that the motion to compel was not timely filed. This argument is identical to the argument which was rejected in the Court’s ruling in item 10 on Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, and is rejected for the same reasons.

The instant requests seek documents related to Plaintiff’s claimed economic loss, prior employment and workers’ compensation claims, pertinent CBAs, and documents supporting her claims regarding her claims for unpaid compensation and complaints made to governmental agencies regarding Defendant’s Head Start program.

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s claim in opposition that Defendant lacks good cause to obtain the requested documents. The party seeking to compel further responses to a request for production of documents has the burden of “setting forth specific facts

showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP §

2031.310(b)(1).) In the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) The categories of documents set forth in the preceding paragraph easily meet this standard.

Plaintiff next argues that she provided code compliant responses though her opposition memorandum only discusses requests nos. 1, 5, 15, 16 and 17. No. 1 requested all documents that support Plaintiff’s economic damages. While Plaintiff identified certain documents in her response, she did not, as she contends in opposition, indicate that the documents will be produced and a further response is therefore required.

Requests Nos. 5 and 15 asked for production of all Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBA”) identified in her form interrogatory responses and a complete copy of the CBA that was in force during her employment. Plaintiff, as she did in connection with the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, argues that she cannot comply because she never received a copy of the CBA during her employment. The Court analyzed this argument in connection with Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories in item 10 and the argument is rejected for the same reasons here. The fact that the documents may be in the possession of third parties does not mean that she does not have an obligation to conduct a diligent investigation and obtain such documents from third parties. The Court must note that the responses currently only state that the requested documents are not in her “possession”. She does not state that the documents are also not under her “custody, or control” as required by CCP § 2031.230. Further the two requests are not duplicative as No. 5 asked for documents identified in interrogatory responses and No. 15 asked for the specific CBA that governed the employment relationship.

Nos. 16 and 17 asked for documents supporting her claims for vacation pay. Plaintiff contends that no amended response is needed because she identified certain documents and stated that the documents were in Defendant’s possession. However, she did not state that documents would be produced and that fact that Defendant may have certain documents does not preclude Plaintiff from producing documents that she contends supports her claims.

Plaintiff did not address any other specific requests in the opposition memorandum. The Court notes that there were arguments raised in the response to Defendant’s separate statement regarding Nos. 2, 3, and 19-22 that were not discussed in the opposition memorandum. The Court would agree that requests 2 and 3, which ask for all documents related to actions filed by Plaintiff in the past 10 years and all claims for workers’ compensation benefits in the past 10 years, are overly broad and a further response is not required. While true that the form interrogatories (11 series) allows interrogatories regarding these topics, that does not mean that Defendant can simply propound such a broad document request. Defendant is free to propound interrogatories asking whether Plaintiff has made any such claims and free to propound a more narrowly tailored document request. The remaining requests (19-22) seek documents specifically related to allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint and/or which support her special interrogatory responses. As seen with respect to 19-21, Plaintiff has essentially confirmed that she produced responsive documents and thus

the objection-only responses are inappropriate. The objection-only response to No. 22 which seeks documents supporting her special interrogatory responses is inappropriate. The request is not vague and overbroad nor does it fail to adequately describe the documents requested.

The Court also rejects the contention that Defendant failed to meet and confer. Despite the accusations that Defendant failed to meet and confer on the issues raised by the instant motion, Defendant adequately met and conferred. (E.g., Williams Decl. Exhs. M, P, R.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as Defendant’s motion was mostly successful and thus substantially justified. Defendant’s request for sanctions made for the first time in reply on the basis that Plaintiff improperly accused Defendant of misusing discovery and opposing the motion without substantial justification is denied. Defendant did not request sanctions in the notice of motion nor discuss sanctions in the opening memorandum. “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanctions sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.) Defendant appears to have recognized this as it filed and served a notice of request for sanctions on January 5, 2018. However, as seen in the Court’s ruling in item 9, this request was dropped for insufficient notice.

As a result, the motion is granted. No later than January 26, 2018, Plaintiff shall provide further verified responses to Defendant’s production nos. 1, 5, 15-17, 19-22 as requested in the moving papers. The motion is denied as to nos. 2 and 3 as set forth above.