Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 20STCV26426, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26426    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE

Date:                           10/13/22 (8:30 AM)                                         

Case:               Susan Roe v. Matt Strawn et al. (20STCV26426)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Susan Roe’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production, Set Three is GRANTED.

With respect to Request No. 62, plaintiff Susan Roe withdrew this request from the motion. (Reply at 2:8-9.) Accordingly, the only request at issue is Request No. 42, which seeks the production of the contract of the Adobe Joint Initiative.  

According to plaintiff, the Adobe Joint Initiative was an initiative whereby Accenture would help Adobe expand its business in the Healthcare Payer & Provider, Life Science, and Financial industry sectors. (FAC ¶ 22.) Plaintiff was one of the leaders of the initiative. (FAC ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that Michael Shulof, North American Managing Director of Health and Public Services, sought to prevent Adobe from participating in the Adobe Joint Initiative to undermine plaintiff due to her gender and sex and complaints about Shulof’s sexist behavior. (FAC ¶¶ 55, 61, 64.) As a result, Adobe did not renew the Joint Initiative, causing defendant Accenture to eliminate the Adobe Sales Team and plaintiff’s reassignment to a position that did not match her skills and experience. (FAC ¶¶ 69-71.) Plaintiff was ultimately terminated for purportedly failing to meet chargeability goals. (FAC ¶¶ 109, 112.) Shulof allegedly caused plaintiff to be removed from a chargeable role that would have helped her meet her goals. (FAC ¶ 100.)

Shulof testified during his deposition that plaintiff presented herself as a “front for Adobe software sales,” which only served the interests of Adobe, not Accenture, in the Joint Initiative. (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 15 & Ex. J at 116:24-117:11, 119:4-7, 119:24-120:8.)

Based on plaintiff’s allegations concerning Shulof’s undermining of plaintiff and Shulof’s testimony that plaintiff was not meeting the needs of Accenture, the contract for the Adobe Joint Initiative is probative of the merit of Shulof’s evaluation of plaintiff’s performance and whether plaintiff was fulfilling Accenture’s role for her in the initiative. Accenture contends that the initiative or its contract are not related to her termination or being passed over for two positions and that liability based on Shulof’s actions is time-barred. However, Accenture’s contentions do not defeat plaintiff’s right to discover relevant material. (CCP § 2017.010.) Discovery is framed by the pleadings. (Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 711-12 [“[F]or discovery purposes, information is relevant to the ‘subject matter’ of an action if the information might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement”].) Based on plaintiff’s allegation that her reassignment and termination were related to Shulof’s undermining of the Adobe Joint Initiative, plaintiff is entitled to discover documents that may clarify her role in the initiative.

Any confidentiality concerns are sufficiently addressed through the protective order entered in this action.

The motion is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days hereof, defendant Accenture LLP is ordered to serve a verified further response, without objection, to Request for Production, Set Three, No. 42 and serve responsive documents thereto.