Lawzilla Additional Information:
The perils of filing a lawsuit which is a matter of public record. We now know Danielle Potter has an “infection” which she claims was caused by a sexually transmitted disease. She apparently claims it was caused by Kuba Jewgieniew. Danielle Potter also apparently claims Kuba Jewgieniew has a Bentley, committed tax fraud and financial shenanigans, and harassed her

2013-00667494

Motion: Order Compelling Further Responses and Responsive Documents to request for Production of Documents. Moving Party Plaintiff Danielle Snyder Potter. Responding Party Defendants Realty One Group, Kuba Jewgieniew, Apan LLC, and Everest Escrow, Inc.

Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendants’ Further Responses and Responsive Documents is granted as to Request 9 and denied as to Requests 15, 18-33, 36-42 and 48-49. Requests 15, 36-37, 41-42, and 48-49 are denied without prejudice to plaintiff making more narrowed requests. The motion is granted as to the redactions made to emails between plaintiff and defendant Jewgieniew and denied as to the redactions made to credit card statements. Plaintiff must serve a verified supplemental response, without objection, to Request 9, and serve unredacted copies of the emails, within 20-days. The motion is moot as to Request 35 and the issues regarding missing pages and hidden text as these matters were resolved by the parties. The court declines to strike ¶19 as requested by defendant.

Request 9 seeks all electronic communications between plaintiff and defendant Jewgieniew. Defendants objected and subject to the objections produced only emails from plaintiff’s e-mail archive which related to sex. However, direct communications between plaintiff and the alleged harasser appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP 2017.010) Even communications which, on their face, do not appear harassing could be corroborative of plaintiff’s harassment allegations. In addition, defendant’s privacy and proprietary information objections fail as to this request as plaintiff was already privy to these communications and any confidentiality concerns are adequately addressed by the protective order previously entered. Defendant must provide a further response, without objection, and produce any responsive documents in an unredacted form, including those already produced with redactions.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause (CCP 2031.310(b)(1)) for the documents sought in Requests 15, 18-33, 38-40, and 42. Plaintiff asserts information regarding defendant Jewgieniew’s travel (No. 15) and location (No. 42), what he listed as his primary residence on his California tax returns (No. 18), and where he registered his Bentley (No. 19) is relevant to plaintiff’s claim defendant committed tax fraud and to her claims of harassment when she was directed to meet defendant outside the office. Plaintiff contends information regarding payments and transfers involving the entity defendants is relevant to her claims of fraudulent and improper activities (Nos. 20-33, and 38-40).

However, other misconduct by defendants is only relevant to the extent it pertains to plaintiff’s contention that she did not resist or report the harassment due to fear for the safety of her, her family, and her career. (Complaint; ¶ 19) And, plaintiff has not established how or why defendants’ alleged tax fraud and financial shenanigans caused her to fear for her safety or career. Absent such a showing, plaintiff has not shown good cause for the discovery of other misconduct. In addition, plaintiff’s requests for travel information and all diaries, calendars, and appointment books are overbroad.

Plaintiff is not entitled to conduct discovery on any possible wrongdoing by defendants, unrelated to sexual harassment, simply to obtain impeachment evidence. (Evidence Code §1101(c))

Request 36 does not designate the category of documents sought with reasonable particularity. (CCP 2031.030(c)(1)) Documents “showing control” could include everything from checks (both those signed and endorsed) to every e-mail sent by defendant Jewgieniew to every employees, contractor, vendor, and client of the three entities. Thus, while information regarding defendant Jewgieniew’s control of the entity defendants appears relevant to plaintiff’s allegation she worked for all three entity defendants, the current request is overbroad and does not adequately describe the documents sought.

Request 37, which seeks all video recordings, and all camera records, for 4 locations, during the entire period plaintiff was employed is overbroad.

Request 41, which seeks all records of defendant being treated, diagnosed, or tested for a STD is overbroad and plaintiff has not shown good cause for the breadth of the request. The request seeks sensitive, private medical records. When such records are sought, the court balances the plaintiff’s need for the information versus the privacy rights at-issue. In order to warrant disclosure, the plaintiff’s need must be compelling and the request must be as narrowly tailored as possible. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199.) Here, at a minimum, in order to show good cause and a compelling need, plaintiff needs to provide evidence on exactly what conditions of defendant could have caused her specific infection and limit her request to only those conditions. To the extent plaintiff contends any STD of defendant could have caused her infection, she has not established that in her showing in support of the motion.

Requests 48-49 are also overbroad and need to be more narrowly targeted.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for all information on the credit card statements which defendants produced in a redacted fashion.