2013-00139211-CU-OE

Kristen Carbone vs. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group

Nature of Proceeding:  Motion to Compel Discovery

Filed By: Velez, Mark P.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is granted.

Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to the discovery requests and
production of documents, on or before June 10, 2014.  The scope of the discovery
responses and production documents is defined by the Requests for Production Nos.
100 and 101, and not the terms of the subpoena to itself drafted by Kaiser.

Plaintiff works as a lab technician for defendant Kaiser.  Plaintiff alleges that her
supervisor at Kaiser Permanente Medical Group sexually harassed her, in violation of
the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Plaintiff alleges that the supervisor and
another female employee would leave work without approval and have sex. The
supervisor would then come back to work and boast to others including plaintiff of his
sexual exploits.  Plaintiff alleges that she complained about his conduct from 2010 to
2012.  She allege that after she complained, her supervisor began to harass her
directly by unwanted touching and sexually charged comments.  Plaintiff made
complaints for two years but nothing was done until a graphic text message sent by
the supervisor was shown to her superiors. The supervisor remains employed by
Kaiser.

Plaintiff’s Request for Production Set 3, Nos. 100 and 101, seeks information from
Kaiser about other employees who complained of sexual harassment by the same
supervisor, including investigations and results of the investigation.  Plaintiff contends
that she is entitled to information other than the supervisor’s personnel file, including a
file maintained by Kaiser in Oakland that contains all sexual harassment complaints.
The parties entered a stipulated protective order on October 23, 2014. Plaintiff has
also stipulated that the names of other complainants in the responsive documents can
be redacted for purposes of this dispute

In opposition, Kaiser states that since the supervisor, defendant Thomas, has not
appeared in the action, Kaiser served a subpoena for the documents in its possession
with a production date of May 27, 2014.  Kaiser is willing to produce the documents
after the scheduled date of production to ensure notice of the document request has
been given to the defendant, Thomas.  It is not clear from the moving papers whether
this motion was served on defendant Thomas, since motions need only be served on
parties who have appeared in the action, or whether plaintiff otherwise notified Thomas
of the discovery.

A moving party seeking documents must show “good cause” for production. (Code Civ.
Proc, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “Good cause” for the production of documents has
been construed liberally, and justification is found where specific facts show the
documents are necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (
Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court  (1967) 65 Cal. 2d 583, 587-588).   The
court finds good cause for ordering the discovery.

Sanctions are denied.  Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,985, for 6.5 hours
of time at a rate of $450 per hour, and the $60 filing fee.   However, the Court is
denying the sanctions request on the ground that there is no evidence in the moving or
reply papers that plaintiff gave prior notice of this discovery to Thomas, either by
serving him with a copy of the discovery at the time it was served on Kaiser, or
otherwise.  The Court is not sanctioning defendant for its attempt to protect its
employee’s privacy by serving a subpoena on itself to provide additional time to notify
the employee.  If the plaintiff produces evidence that she gave Thomas prior notice of
the discovery, the Court will reconsider its decision on the sanctions.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.