Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV36102, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 22STCV36102 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiff
Arthur Little’s Motion to Compel Production of Defendant’s Person Most
Qualified for Deposition and Related Document Requests
Plaintiff
Arthur Little moves to compel defendant Regents of the University of California
to produce its person(s) most qualified regarding topic Nos. 38, 39, and 40
(notice of motion, p. 2) and to compel production of documents in response to
request Nos. 14, 16, 17, and 18.
Matters
of Examination
Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective
as to the matters of examination. Plaintiff’s
notice of motion specifies topic Nos. 38, 39, and 40. Those topics do not exist. The notice of deposition of defendant’s
person(s) most qualified only lists 23 matters of examination. (Karp Decl., Ex. 1.) The memorandum of points and authorities does
not identify any matters of examination.
Plaintiff
also did not submit a separate statement for the matters of examination as
required. “Any motion involving the
content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be
accompanied by a separate statement.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)
The separate statement must include the text of the request and the text
of each response or objection. (Rule
3.1345(c).) Plaintiff submitted a
separate statement only for the document requests.
Plaintiff’s
reply argues this rule does not apply because this is not a motion “[t]o compel
answers at a deposition.” (Rule
3.1345(a)(4).) The rule provides, “The
motions that require a separate statement include a motion…” (Rule 3.1345(a), italics added.) The list is not exhaustive. Rule 3.1345(b)(1) further provides, “A
separate statement is not required… [w]hen no response has been provided to the
request for discovery.” Defendant did
respond to the matters of examination by objecting. And unlike a motion to compel the deposition
of a natural person, plaintiff seeks to compel the deposition of an
entity. “If the deponent named is not a
natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable
particularity the matters on which examination is requested.” (CCP § 2025.230.) The court cannot rule on this part of the
motion without knowing (a) the exact text of the disputed matters of
examination, and (b) the objections defendant made.
On
the merits, the court will also deny the motion as to the matters of
examination. The opposition and reply
papers identify the disputed matters of examination as Nos. 21 and 22. Topic No. 21 is: “All employee reports or
complaints of racial harassment made against Department of English faculty at
UCLA from 2001 until the present and any investigation performed in response to
those reports or complaints.” Topic No.
22 is: “All employee reports or complaints of racial discrimination made
against Department of English faculty at UCLA and any investigation performed
in response to those reports or complaints.”
Both
topics are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Though “me too” evidence can
be admissible in discrimination and harassment cases, topic Nos. 21 and 22 are overly
broad for two reasons.
First,
they are not limited to complaints against people with whom plaintiff
interacted. “[W]hether evidence of
discrimination by other supervisors is relevant in an individual [discrimination]
case is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related
the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case.” (Sprint/United Management Co. v.
Mendelsohn (2008) 552 U.S. 379, 388.)
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleges racial harassment and
discrimination by some members of the faculty, particularly other Shakespeare
scholars, and leaders of the English Department. Complaints against, for example, faculty
specializing in Asian-American literature who may not even know plaintiff, are not
sufficiently related to plaintiff’s circumstances.
Second, these topics are
not limited to complaints about harassment or discrimination against other
members of plaintiff’s protected class. “The ‘me-too’ doctrine … does not
permit a plaintiff to present evidence of discrimination against employees
outside of the plaintiff’s protected class to show discrimination or harassment
against the plaintiff.” (Pinter-Brown
v. Regents of University of California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, 96.) Plaintiff is African American and
alleges racial discrimination and harassment against him on that basis. Complaints of racial discrimination against,
for example, Native Americans, are not sufficiently related to plaintiff’s
claims.
Plaintiff argues the
relevant protected class is all people of color. Hatai v. Department of Transportation
(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1287 supports defendant’s opposition to this
argument. There, the Court of Appeal held
the trial court properly excluded evidence of “general xenophobia against
non-Arabs” because the action “was pled as an anti-Asian case, not as an Arab
favoritism case.” (Id. at p.
1298.) Racism against people of color is
more akin to white favoritism than anti-Black racism.
Topic No. 21 is also not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because plaintiff
filed this action in November 2022. Complaints
made as early as 2001 are too remote to lead to admissible evidence.
Defendant’s objections to
matters of examination Nos. 21 and 22 are sustained.
Document
Requests
Request No. 14 is not a reasonably
particularized category. A request for
production must “[d]esignate the documents” to be produced “either by
specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing
each category of item.” (CCP §
2031.030(c)(1).)
No.
14 demands “All DOCUMENTS evidencing any COMMUNICATION between YOU and any of
YOUR current or former employees or agents concerning the allegations or facts
in PLAINTIFF’s complaint filed in this lawsuit.” The category of communications “concerning
the allegations or facts in PLAINTIFF’s complaint” is so broad that defendant
cannot reasonably respond to it. The categories must “be reasonably
particularized from the standpoint of the party who is subjected to the burden
of producing the materials.” (Calcor
Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222.) A request for production may be improper when
“[t]here is no indication the ‘categories’ bear any relationship to the
manner in which [the responding party] maintains its records.” (Ibid.) There is no indication that defendant organizes
records of communications by the subject of the communication. This request would require defendant “to search its extensive files … to see what it can find to fit [plaintiff’s]
definitions, instructions and categories.”
(Ibid.)
Defendant’s objections to document request No. 14
are sustained.
Request Nos. 16, 17, and 18 are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for the same reasons
as matters of examination Nos. 21 and 22.
No. 16 demands, “All DOCUMENTS that reflect or constitute any
complaints, reports, or claims made by any employee of the English Department
regarding racial discrimination during PLAINTIFF’s employment with YOU.” No. 17 demands, “All DOCUMENTS that reflect
or constitute any complaints, reports, or claims made by any employee of the
English Department regarding harassment based on race during PLAINTIFF’s
employment with YOU.” No. 18 demands, “All
DOCUMENTS that reflect or constitute any complaints, reports, or claims made by
any employee of the English Department regarding retaliation during PLAINTIFF’s
employment with YOU.”
These requests encompass documents from over 20
years ago. The categories exceed the
scope of the discrimination and harassment plaintiff alleges and would include
complaints about people who never interacted with plaintiff. No. 18, however, concerns retaliation, not
discrimination or harassment based on race.
A broader scope of discovery is appropriate because the relevant motive
is bias against employees who complain of illegal activity, not bias against
employees because of their race.
Defendant proposed reasonable limitations to these
requests: documents about “complaints against English faculty at UCLA that they
harassed or discriminated against Black or African American individuals made to
the Discrimination and Prevention Office, UCLA’s Dean(s) of Division of
Humanities, UCLA English Department’s Chief Administrative Officer, and UCLA
English Department Chair(s) since 2017.’ ”
(Opp., p. 18.)
Defendant’s objections to document requests Nos. 16,
17, and 18 are sustained
in part. The court will require defendant to produce
documents subject to the limits proposed in the opposition and subject to their
objections based on attorney-client privilege.
Disposition
Plaintiff Arthur Little’s motion to
compel deposition and production of documents is denied as to the
disputed matters of examination and as to document request No. 14. Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part
as to document request Nos. 16, 17, and 18.
Defendant
Regents of the University of California is ordered to produce all non-privileged
documents in the following categories at the deposition of its person(s) most
qualified:
No.
16: “All DOCUMENTS that reflect or
constitute any complaints, reports, or claims against English faculty at UCLA
that they discriminated against Black or African American individuals made to
the Discrimination and Prevention Office, UCLA’s Dean(s) of Division of
Humanities, UCLA English Department’s Chief Administrative Officer, and UCLA
English Department Chair(s) since 2017.”
No.
17: “All DOCUMENTS that reflect or
constitute any complaints, reports, or claims against English faculty at UCLA
that they harassed Black or African American individuals made to the
Discrimination and Prevention Office, UCLA’s Dean(s) of Division of Humanities,
UCLA English Department’s Chief Administrative Officer, and UCLA English
Department Chair(s) since 2017.”
No. 18: “All DOCUMENTS that reflect or constitute
any complaints, reports, or claims against English faculty at UCLA that they
retaliated against people because they complained of racial harassment or
discrimination made to the Discrimination and Prevention Office, UCLA’s Dean(s)
of Division of Humanities, UCLA English Department’s Chief Administrative
Officer, and UCLA English Department Chair(s) since 2017.”
Defendant
is further ordered to produce a privilege log for any documents
withheld as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240(c).