Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV45820, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45820    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 4, 2021, Joseph Cartwright (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Los Angeles Community College District (“LACCD”), Albert Roman (“Roman”), and Mercedes Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging seven causes of action for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to prevent FEHA violations, and violation of equal pay. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that LACCD rejected his application for the position of Director of Employee-Employer Relations based on discriminatory motives.  

            On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further answers in the deposition of Sima Salek. Salek is an attorney investigator who was hired by LACCD to conduct workplace investigations, including investigations of complaints involving Plaintiff. At issue in this motion, Salek was instructed not to answer ten questions based on attorney-client privilege. The questions at issue sought information regarding investigation services that Salek provided to other clients, or to LACCD but involving employees other than Plaintiff.  

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a).)

DISCUSSION

            It should first be noted that Plaintiff has not served Salek in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346, which requires service of the motion upon the nonparty deponent. The proof of service attached to the motion indicates it was only served to defense counsel, who does not represent Salek.

            Although information pertaining to the adequacy of an investigation is relevant if a defendant alleges as a defense that it investigated the plaintiff’s complaints and took proper remedial action, this applies to investigations involving the plaintiff himself. (See Wellpoint Health Networks v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 128.) There is no blanket rule requiring disclosure of all attorney investigations of employer discrimination. (Id. at p. 122.)

            Plaintiff seeks further information on investigations that Salek conducted which did not involve Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not adequately articulate the relevance of these investigations. Even if these other investigations and services were somehow relevant to Salek’s credibility or bias¹, their relevance would be outweighed by the privacy interests of the other employees. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556.)

CONCLUSION

¹ Plaintiff claims that Salek’s credibility is at issue because she lied about how many investigations she conducted for LACCD. However, Salek has consistently maintained that she conducted 18 investigations total, with 5 for the HR department specifically. (Stein-Manes Decl., Ex. 5 at 120:2-17.) These numbers are not contradictory.