Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

KRISTEL VALDEZ, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, and the SIGNAL

HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT, a California

public entity; CHIEF CHRISTOPHER M.

NUNLEY, and DOES 1 through 50,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV05879

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 02/16/2022

[1st Amended Complaint Filed: 04/28/2022]

Trial Date: 10/20/2025

Hearing Date: August 21, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff Kristel Valdez

Responding Party: Defendant City of Signal Hill

Motion: Motion to Compel Site Inspection

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Physical Inspection is GRANTED.

Background

Kristel Valdez (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on February 16, 2022 against her former employers the City of Signal Hill (the City), Signal Hill Police Department (SHPD), and Police Chief Christopher Nunley (Nunley, collectively Defendants). A First Amended Complaint (FAC) followed on April 28, 2022 which alleged the following causes of action:

1. Harassment (Gov. Code, § 12940(j))

2. Religious Discrimination – Failure to Accommodate (Gov. Code, § 12940(l))

3. Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code, § 12940(a))

4. Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodation (Gov. Code, § 12940(m))

5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code, § 12940(n))

6. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code, §§ 12940(h))

7. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation (Gov. Code, § 12940(k))

Plaintiff was hired on July 27, 2015 as an Administrative Assistant to the SHPD Chief of Police, who at the time was Michael Langston (Langston). In January of 2017, Nunley replaced Langston. (FAC, ¶¶12-13.). Plaintiff is a Seventh Day Adventist and negotiated as a condition of her employment to work 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and have Friday afternoons off in order to observe the Sabbath, which Plaintiff celebrates from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. (FAC, ¶14.)

Plaintiff alleges that Nunley subjected Plaintiff to harassment and a hostile work environment by Nunley’s use of derogatory, racist, and homophobic comments. (FAC, ¶16.) Plaintiff reported these incidents on multiple occasions to multiple officers in the office. Plaintiff alleges no corrective action was taken until a lawsuit (Case No. BC706721) was subsequently filed against Nunley and the City alleging race discrimination. (FAC, ¶¶18-19.) In July of 2019, Plaintiff was subpoenaed to testify as a witness in the aforementioned case, testifying to Nunley’s derogatory comments. (FAC, ¶22.)

Nunley subsequently began to harass and retaliate against Plaintiff including demeaning her in the presence of team members, stripping Plaintiff of job duties, and threatening her with termination. (FAC, ¶23.) When Plaintiff’s flexible schedule was suddenly revoked, Plaintiff requested religious accommodations which was rejected. (FAC, ¶26.) After requesting her previous flexible schedule of 7:30am to 4:30pm for Monday through Thursday due to her physical disabilities, Nunley requested Plaintiff turn in her keys and badge because she was being placed under investigation. (FAC, ¶28.) Plaintiff was placed on leave and subsequently terminated on June 18, 2020. (FAC, ¶¶ 28-34.)

The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Physical Inspection and Request Sanctions (the Motion). The City opposes the Motion, Plaintiff files a reply.

Discussion

Legal Standard

The propounding party may bring motions to compel inspection or further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d).)

Analysis

In her moving papers, Plaintiff asserts the site inspection is necessary because the reason given in the Notice of Termination was that Plaintiff violated City policies by using her work computer to send personal emails and conduct job searches for herself and her husband. (Moving Papers, 5:15-17. Also see Declaration of Erin Lim, hereinafter “Lim Decl.", Exh. 1.) Plaintiff argues the inspection of the worksite, specifically the office of the Police Chief, and the administrative assistant’s desk immediately outside are relevant to confirm whether Nunley could see Plaintiff’s computer monitor as Nunley alleges he could in the Notice of Intent to Terminate.

Upon opposition, the City makes two primary contentions: (1) the motion is untimely, and (2) the inspection would disrupt the functions of the police department and potentially breach the confidentiality of third parties. The Court disagrees and grans the motion.

1. The Motion is Timely

The City first attempts to argue that the instant Motion is untimely. The initial demand for a site inspection was served on August 3, 2023. (Lim Decl., ¶4.) After objections were served by the City on September 20, 2023, the parties met and conferred. (Lim Decl., ¶¶6-7.) On February 2, 2024, an amended demand for a site inspection was served. On March 1, 2024, the City objected again. The instant Motion, which is required to be brough within 45 days, was brough on April 15, 2024. The City attempts to argue the Motion should have been brought to the first demand for a site inspection but offers no authority to support such a contention. The amended demand was properly served, objections were provided as a response, and the instant Motion was timely brought before the Court.

2. The Inspection Can Be Limited

The City’s second objection is the site inspection will disrupt the police department’s function and may compromise confidentiality. Through both meet and confer efforts, and upon reply, Plaintiff has offered to keep the inspection limited only to the space at issue – the Police Chief’s office and the administrative assistant’s desk immediately outside. Moreover, Plaintiff is not seeking records nor files. The inspection is for a small location within the police department, at a time and date the parties will both know ahead of time. Simple measures such as removing or concealing personnel files alleviate the confidentiality issue, additionally Plaintiff will not record or take photos of any employees nor other persons. With regard to the time concern, given the small space of the site inspection, the parties can agree to limit the inspection well under the seven hours that the City objects to.

Sanctions

Although the City’s objections are overruled, and the Motion is granted, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Physical Inspection is GRANTED.

It is so ordered.

Dated: August 21, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court