Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV22100, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22100    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further documents is GRANTED. However, due to inadequate meet and confer, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

On 12/15/2022, Plaintiff Johnnie McGee (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant County of Los Angeles (County), alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. 

            On 4/29/2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set Nine).

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues good cause exists to compel further responses to RFP No. 76.

            RFP No. 76 requests: “All Performance Evaluations prepared by Jackie Switzler, James Bailey or Albert Yanagisawa for FPEAs employed by the LACOFD for years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. (To the extent that the County of Los Angeles claims that the identity of such employees are privileged, the names of each employee may be redacted.)”

            Plaintiff argues that this request is relevant and narrowly tailored: “This request is not vague or overbroad, rather this request limits its request to performance evaluations of only Defendant's employees with the designation FPEA. More specifically, the request is further limited to FPEA personnel that had a performance evaluation prepared by Jackie Switzer, James Bailey or Albert Yanagisawa ONLY, for 2 years prior to when Plaintiff filed his lawsuit and 2 years after the filing of this suit. Defendant cannot show that this is unduly burdensome or oppressive, as this request is very limited and should only yield a few results, Defendant just does not want to comply.” (SS, p. 2:21-28.)

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer, and that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that relevance outweighs confidentiality. In support of the latter contention, Defendant argues:

Plaintiff has not met that burden. It is undisputed that Plaintiff and others did not receive their performance evaluations during COVID. It is also undisputed that Chief Yanagisawa discovered in 2022 that numerous other performance evaluations need to be completed, including Plaintiffs, which he completed and presented. Plaintiff has not presented any compelling argument as to why the County should produce confidential performance evaluations for five years – 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 – of all FPEA Is and IIs - when the only two years that Plaintiff claims that Switzler did not prepare performance evaluations for him [as opposed to others]. And, for those two years – 2020 and 2021 - Plaintiff knows that Switzler did not prepare the performance evaluations because she was on a medical leave of absence, her last day in Calabasas was December 21, 2021, and she retired in March 2022. Therefore, there is no purpose to compelling any other employee’s performance evaluations.

            (Opp., 11-21.)

            However, performance evaluations are clearly relevant evidence to establishing Plaintiffs’ claims for discrimination and retaliation, as disparate treatment is critical evidence in such claims. Moreover, while Defendants argue that there is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory reason for why evaluations were not prepared for Plaintiff but were prepared for others for two of the years implicated here, that does not mean that Plaintiff is not entitled to discover that evidence. To the extent that documents being requested do not exist, Defendants must provide a code-compliant response indicating this.

            In sum, the Court finds the request for performance evaluations relevant, and the time scope—two years before Plaintiff’s lawsuit and two years after—to be narrowly tailored.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further documents is granted. However, because Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were inadequate (See Opp., 1: 11-16), the Court declines to award sanctions at this time. The Court urges the parties to attempt informal resolution of the pending motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  June    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.