2012-00131754-CU-OE

Manuel Gonzales vs. Gramercy Court

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production

Filed By: Telfer, Jill P.
The Court has received the parties’ joint statement and notes that many of the
disputed matters have been resolved.

This is an employment, wrongful termination, retaliation and discrimination action. The
court notes that while Plaintiff has specifically alleged age discrimination, he has not
alleged a cause of action for disability discrimination. Plaintiff does allege causes of
action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in
interactive process.

The one remaining dispute is to Plaintiff’s revised request No. 22 for “All documents
Defendants submitted in response to any Federal Equal Employment Opportunity or
California Department of Fair Employment Housing filed by an employee or former
employees based on age, disability discrimination, and/or retaliation against Defendant
in the last 5 years.”

Plaintiff has suggested redacting personal identifying information such as the name,
address, social security number and has agreed to enter into a protective order.

Defendant opposes the request on the grounds that it is not relevant, overbroad, and
impedes third party privacy rights. Defendant is concerned that it may be exposed to
claims of invasion of privacy if it produces information about DFEH or EEOC claims as
the DFEH has expressly recognized privacy protections of the complainants and
witnesses. For example, in responding to a Public Records Act Request, the DFEH
redacts the names and identifying information of any third-party witnesses, home
addresses, telephone numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers,
driver’s license numbers and dates of birth for all individuals.

The Court acknowledges Defendant’s concerns regarding the third person privacy
rights. However, appropriate redactions as outlined by DFEH will alleviate its privacy
concerns. The Court also agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to such documents as they
are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (with the
exception for documents related to disability discrimination which has not been pled in
the complaint). Accordingly, Defendant’s relevancy objection is SUSTAINED as to the
request for documents related to disability discrimination, but OVERRULED as to the
request for documents related to age discrimination and retaliation.

The Court finds that the 5 year time frame is not overbroad, Defendant’s objection is
OVERRULED.

The Court notes that this motion is to compel further responses and is not to compel
compliance with an agreement to produce documents. Thus, redactions to the
documents are not at issue here.

The motion to compel is GRANTED. By no later than October 21, 2013, Defendant
shall provide further verified written response to the revised request consistent with
this Order.

Requests for sanctions are denied.

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

2012-00131754-CU-OE

Manuel Gonzales vs. Gramercy Court

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Filed By: Telfer, Jill P.

The Court has received the parties’ joint statement and notes that many of the
disputed matters have been resolved. The remaining disputes are with Form
Interrogatory Nos. 204.5, 204.3, 204.1, 204.4, and 216.1.

This is an employment, wrongful termination, retaliation and discrimination action. The
court notes that while Plaintiff has specifically alleged age discrimination, he has not
alleged a cause of action for disability discrimination. Plaintiff does allege causes of
action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in
interactive process.

Interrogatory 204.5

“Did the EMPLOYEE need any accommodation to perform any function of the
EMPLOYEE’S job position or need a transfer to another position as an
accommodation? If so, describe the accommodations needed.”

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s response does not fully respond to this
interrogatory.

Interrogatory Nos. 204.3, 204.1, 204.4, and 216.1

In its meet and confer correspondence, Defendant identified documents (by bates
label) and the contact information responsive to these interrogatories.

Plaintiff requests that Defendant amend its response and provide a verification so that
it may be admitted at trial. The Court has reconsidered its prior guidance that
Defendant need not amend its responses. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that
Defendant should amend its responses to provide the responsive information.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

By no later than October 21, 2013, Defendant shall provide further verified written
response.

Requests for sanctions are denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal notice pursuant to CRC 3.1312 is
required.