Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Rienzo v. County of Orange, Date: 2022-11-10 Tentative Ruling

Defendant County of Orange’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Defendant County of Orange moves to compel plaintiff Maria Rienzo to provide a further response to Request for Production (Set One) No. 3.  For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is granted.

Defendant’s Request No. 3 seeks “[a]ny and all COMMUNICATION[s] between YOU and HARN from the period of May 1, 2019 through the present.”  In plaintiff’s initial response to the request, plaintiff asserted various objections and responded that she would produce nonprivileged responsive documents in her possession, custody or control.  In a supplemental response, plaintiff stated she had produced documents Bates labeled RIENZO0016 through RIENZO0060, “which are all the responsive documents in [plaintiff’s] possession, custody, or control.”  Plaintiff’s supplemental response further states, “With regard to documents Bates labeled RIENZO0054, 0056-0059, redactions were made for content having to do with sexual activity between Plaintiff and someone other than the alleged harasser, Defendant Harn, as per Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.220.  No unredacted version will be produced absent order of the Court.”

Defendant asserts that during the parties’ meet and confer discussions, the parties disagreed about whether section 2017.220 applies here and permits plaintiff to redact the above documents.  Section 2017.220(a) states:  “In any civil action alleging conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, any party seeking discovery concerning the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with individuals other than the alleged perpetrator shall establish specific facts showing that there is good cause for that discovery, and that the matter sought to be discovered is relevant to the subject matter of the action and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  This showing shall be made by a noticed motion, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, and shall not be made or considered by the court at an ex parte hearing.”

In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition in which plaintiff states she does not oppose defendant’s motion, and “will produce an unredacted copy of documents responsive to Defendant’s Request for Production (Set One) No. 3, subject to a stipulated protective order.  Alternatively, should Defendant County not agree to a protective order, Plaintiff will submit the documents to the Court for an in camera inspection.”  Defendant did not file a reply.

Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve either a proposed stipulated protective order or a motion for entry of a protective order by November 28, 2022.  Plaintiff shall produce unredacted copies of all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 3 within ten calendar days after entry of a protective order.

Defendant to give notice.