Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV07425, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 15, 2024

Case Name: Persons v. City of Pasadena, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV48590

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (2x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gena Persons

Responding Party: Defendant City of Pasadena

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions are denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment action.  Plaintiff Gena Persons seeks to compel further responses from Defendant City of Pasadena as to her requests for production, sets two and three.

1. Set Two

Plaintiff seeks further responses as to request nos. 73 and 75. 

Request no. 73 seeks, “All documents that evidence, refer to or reflect any and all job positions available within the Pasadena Police Department, from 2018 to the present.”

Request no. 75 seeks, “All documents that evidence, refer to or reflect the job descriptions for any and alternate job positions YOU presented to PLAINTIFF, from 2018 to the present.”

Defendant responded, “Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and has produced responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control as Documents Nos. COP003264-COP003271; COP015164- COP015165. All of Responding Party's Job Opportunities are published and publicly available ongoingly including at: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/pasadena. All of Responding Party's Classifications are published and publicly available at: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/pasadena/classspecs.”

Plaintiff argues that “Defendant advised that certain jobs listed in their document production (COP003264-COP003271; COP015164- COP01565) were absolute on the website and therefore no longer available. As such, Plaintiff seeks that Defendant City of Pasadena provide a further supplemental response identifying the jobs from the document production that cannot be accessed through the website.”

Defendant argues that “Plaintiff's demand that the City provide testimony in its response to identify obsolete positions is not required under the Code of Civil Procedure and is an attempt by Plaintiff to circumvent the discovery process (seeking the information through the appropriate discovery method(s)—depositions or special interrogatories).”

The Motion is denied.  Plaintiff can propound appropriate interrogatories for additional information.  The responses are sufficient.  

2. Set Three

Plaintiff seeks further responses as to request nos. 94, 95, and 97. 

Request no. 94 seeks, “To the extent not encompassed by the above, all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Katie Sullivan about Gena Persons.”

Defendant responded that “Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control as COP015164-COP015393.”

Plaintiff argues the production is not responsive.

Defendant contends that “The City mislabeled its production and will reproduce the portions of the production that were mislabeled to correct and resolve this issue.”  

It is, thus, not clear to the Court that anything needs to be compelled at this time.

Request no. 95 seeks, “To the extent not encompassed by the above, all DOCUMENTS reflecting or RELATING TO Gena Person's work performance, including policy violations or discipline.”

Defendant responded that “Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control as COP004745-COP004784; COP012613-COP012621; COP012683-COP012685; COP012917-COP012919; COP012922- COP012967; COP012606-COP12607; COP12610-12612; and COP015394-COP015400.”

Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s document production is redacted without the production of a privilege log so that the parties and the Court can assess if privilege.”

The Motion is denied as to request no. 95 because it seems that Defendant has now served a (supplemented) privilege log. 

Request no. 97 seeks, “All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, reflecting or RELATING TO YOUR litigation hold policy.”

Defendant responded that “Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has produced all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control including without limitation COP003596-COP003867 at COP003627, COP003629, COP003636, COP003783, and COP003809; COP003918-3919; COP004186; COP004422; COP004443-COP004451; COP004550-COP004552; COP004643; and COP014873-COP15163 at COP015147-COP015153.”

Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s document production consist of the City of Pasadena Manual but there are no documents actually related to the litigation hold policy. . . . If Defendant does not actually have a litigation hold policy it should state that instead of producing unresponsive documents.”

Defendant contends that “The City has identified and produced all responsive documents as the response above indicates. To the extent Plaintiff has questions about the documents produced, Plaintiff should pose those inquiries in the appropriate discovery vehicle (i.e., special interrogatories, depositions, etc.) Neither the written response nor the production needs to be amended or supplemented and the City has satisfied its obligations under the Civil Discovery Act.”

The subject production was not provided by either party and so the Court cannot determine its adequacy.  

Therefore, the Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.