Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV36024, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36024 Hearing Date: October 27, 2023 Dept: 74
Sandra Lainez v. County of Los
Angeles Department of Public Social Services
Plaintiff Sandra Lainez’s Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) from Defendant
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from an
employment dispute.
On
September 30, 2021, Plaintiff Sandra Lainez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint
against Defendant Los Angeles County department of Public Social Services
(Defendant). The complaint alleges disability discrimination, harassment based
on disability, retaliation, failure to engage in the interactive process,
failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to prevent
discrimination.
On
January 12, 2023, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents
(RFPs) on Defendant.
After
multiple extensions, Defendant responded on April 28, 2023. Plaintiff was
dissatisfied with the responses.
On
August 30, 2023, Defendant provided further responses. Plaintiff was still
dissatisfied.
On
October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to compel Defendant’s
further responses to RFP Nos. 25-32 and 42-44.
LEGAL STANDARD
¿¿ A
propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to a
demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or
statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is
“without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must set forth specific facts showing
good cause for the discovery sought and be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (b), 2031.210, subd. (b).) ¿
DISCUSSION
With this motion, Plaintiff seeks
further responses to RFP Nos. 25-32 and 42-44. Defendant has raised the
deliberative process and official information privileges to the extent these
RFPs request information about internal investigations and related confidential
complaints. Plaintiff in turn argues Defendant has waived these privileges. In
support, Plaintiff invokes Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110. The court there held that, “If a defendant
employer hopes to prevail by showing that it investigated an employee's
complaint . . . then it will have put the adequacy of the investigation
directly at issue, and cannot stand on the attorney-client privilege or work
product doctrine to preclude a thorough examination of its adequacy.” (Id. at
p. 128.)
Such
is not the case here. Plaintiff points to Defendant’s affirmative defenses as
grounds for the alleged waiver of privilege. The thirty-fourth affirmative
defense asserts that Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent or promptly
correct any unlawful behavior. It further states the reasonable use of
Defendant’s procedures would have prevented the harm Plaintiff suffered. Moreover,
the thirty-fifth affirmative defense makes the case that Defendant exercised
reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassment or discriminatory
conduct. Nowhere do these affirmative defenses put the adequacy of Defendant’s
internal investigations at issue. True, such investigations are relevant to
Defendant’s exercise of reasonable care in this context. That privileged communications
are related to issues raised in the litigation does not make them discoverable,
though. (Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 188
Cal.App.3d 1047, 1052-1053.)
Given
the affirmative defenses Plaintiff cites, Defendant has not waived the
deliberative process or official information privileges. However, the question
remains whether they apply to the RFPS in dispute. The official information and
deliberative process privileges pertain to confidential information maintained
by the government. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court of Orange
County (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1040.) Evidence Code section 1040
reflects the official information privilege and provides a privilege to a
public entity to refuse to disclose information acquired in confidence if “there
is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that
outweighs the necessity for disclosure.” (Evid. Code, § 1040; Sander v.
State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, 325.) The deliberative
process privilege protects the decision-making processes of government
agencies. (San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Com. v. Superior Court (2008)
162 Cal.App.4th 159, 170-171.) “The key question in every case is whether the
disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decision-making process in
such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby
undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions.” (Ibid.)
In
light of the foregoing, the court will address each RFP at issue in turn:
RFP
No. 25
This RFP seeks all documents related
to the County Policy of Equity (CPOE) complaint Plaintiff filed on November 26,
2019. The complaint is a part of an internal
investigation conducted by Defendant. Disclosure would discourage candid
discussion among Defendant’s employees and compromise Defendant’s ability to
perform its functions. Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that she
needs these documents to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s privilege
objections stand as a result. In addition, Defendant has agreed to produce the
relevant investigative report subject to a protective order. No further
response is necessary.
RFP
No. 26
This RFP seeks all documents related
to Defendant’s response to the CPOE complaint Plaintiff filed on November 26,
2019. These documents are part of an internal investigation conducted by
Defendant. Disclosure would discourage candid discussion among Defendant’s
employees and compromise Defendant’s ability to perform its functions.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that she needs these documents
to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s privilege objections stand as a result.
In addition, Defendant has agreed to produce the relevant investigative report
subject to a protective order. No further response is necessary.
RFP
No. 27
RFP
No. 28
This RFP seeks all documents related
to the CPOE complaint Plaintiff filed on January 10, 2020. The complaint is a
part of an internal investigation conducted by Defendant. Disclosure would
discourage candid discussion among Defendant’s employees and compromise
Defendant’s ability to perform its functions. Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded
the court that she needs these documents to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s
privilege objections stand as a result. In addition, Defendant has agreed to
produce the relevant investigative report subject to a protective order. No
further response is necessary.
RFP
No. 29
This RFP seeks all documents related
to Defendant’s response to the CPOE complaint Plaintiff filed on January 10,
2020. These documents are part of an internal investigation conducted by
Defendant. Disclosure would discourage candid discussion among Defendant’s
employees and compromise Defendant’s ability to perform its functions.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that she needs these documents
to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s privilege objections stand as a result.
In addition, Defendant has agreed to produce the relevant investigative report
subject to a protective order. No further response is necessary.
RFP
No. 30
This
RFP seeks all documents related to any investigations conducted by Defendant
regarding the CPOE complaint Plaintiff filed on January 10, 2020. Disclosure of
these documents would discourage candid discussion among Defendant’s employees
and compromise Defendant’s ability to perform its functions. Moreover,
Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that she needs these documents to prevail
on her claims. Defendant’s privilege objections stand as a result. In addition,
Defendant has agreed to produce the relevant investigative report subject to a
protective order. No further response is necessary.
RFP
No. 31
This RFP seeks the discrimination
complaint Plaintiff filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
(DFEH) on October 3, 2020. Defendant has agreed to produce its own
investigative report subject to a protective order. No further response is
necessary.
RFP
No. 32
This RFP seeks all documents related
to any investigation Defendant conducted regarding the complaint Plaintiff
filed with the DFEH on October 3, 2020. Disclosure of these documents would
discourage candid discussion among Defendant’s employees and compromise
Defendant’s ability to perform its functions. Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded
the court that she needs these documents to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s
privilege objections stand as a result. In addition, Defendant has agreed to
produce the relevant investigative report subject to a protective order. No
further response is necessary.
RFP
No. 42
RFP
No. 43
This RFP seeks all documents related
to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s CPOE complaint field on September 2,
2022. These documents are part of an internal investigation conducted by
Defendant. Disclosure would discourage candid discussion among Defendant’s
employees and compromise Defendant’s ability to perform its functions.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded the court that she needs these documents
to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s privilege objections stand as a result.
In addition, Defendant asserts it has produced all responsive, non-privileged
documents in its possession. No further response is necessary.
RFP
No. 44
This RFP seeks all documents related
to investigations conducted by Defendant regarding the CPOE complaint Plaintiff
filed on September 2, 2022. Disclosure of these documents would discourage
candid discussion among Defendant’s employees and compromise Defendant’s
ability to perform its functions. Moreover, Plaintiff has not persuaded the
court that she needs these documents to prevail on her claims. Defendant’s
privilege objections stand as a result. In addition, Defendant asserts it has
produced all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession. No further
response is necessary.
Lastly,
neither party has persuaded the court that sanctions are warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court
denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery.
Plaintiff
shall give notice.