Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV15786, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15786 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 Dept: 40
23STCV15786
Maria Carmen Zarate v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Thursday,
May 1, 2025
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination
based on gender, racer, color, and/or national origin while employed by
Defendant Metropolitan Water District (“MWD” or “Defendant”). Defendant
allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting discriminatory practices
and for filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Plaintiff alleges three causes of action for violations under the Fair
Employment Opportunity Act.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
requests an order directing Defendant to produce a person with knowledge of
certain topics, to which Defendant agreed. The witness that Defendant produced
for deposition on January 21, 2025, testified that he made no effort to become
knowledgeable on topics 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 and 31-34. Defendant filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto is due on March 14,
2025. The parties have since stipulated to continue the hearing to July 11,
2025. (Jt. Stip. filed 3/11/25.) The topics at issue are critical to
Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion. Defendant’s objections to the categories
at issue are without merit. The parties have met and conferred but have not
been able to resolve the issues.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint is based on disparate treatment
of an individual but now contends the complaint alleges disparate impact. The
discovery of information of employees other than herself for over a 20-year
period is not relevant and is overbroad. Plaintiff also seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege. Information leading to claims by other
employees violate those third-party employee’s private information. Plaintiff
is not entitled to a “wholesale audit” of MWD’s employment practices.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that when taking Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant
asked for testimony about documents and events as far back as 2006. All of the
deposition topics are relevant and critical to opposing the Motion for Summary
Judgment and establishing Plaintiff’s claim.
III.
DISCUSSION
Topics 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
Plaintiff’s
first amended complaint alleges that in response to an April 2021 letter
written by Assemblymember Mike Gipson requesting the approval of an audit of
MWD’s personnel practices regarding workplace discrimination, including
harassment, bullying, retaliation, and related issues in light of recent
reports, MWD retained the Shaw Law Group to conduct that audit subsequently published
in July 2021. (FAC ¶¶ 14-16.)
Plaintiff
alleges a second auditor report was released in April 2022 noting Defendant’s
failure to promote transparency or ensure a fair and equitable workplace. (FAC
¶ 27.) Plaintiff identified the Shaw Law Group and the Bucherati Group as
entities with knowledge relating to the adverse employment actions at issue.
The
information is crucial to Plaintiff’s prima facie case to establish intentional
discrimination based on Defendant’s past employment practices. The audit
reports at issue were requested by assembly members and subsequently published.
(FAC ¶ 14-16.) The fact that the audits were made public is not a reason for
refusing to provide a witness with knowledge of those audits and
investigations.
Defendant
objected to Plaintiff’s discovery of the relationship between Defendant and
Shaw and Defendant and Bucherati, a June 2004 State Auditor’s Audit, and the
California Assembly’s April 1, 2021, letter that preceded the audits. These
topics of inquiry are relevant; whether the question seeks responses violative
of attorney-client privilege cannot be evaluated without reference to the
particular question asked, which Plaintiff was prohibited from asking, because
Defendant refused to produce a knowledgeable witness.
The
date such investigations and reports were prepared are not relevant to the
scope of discoverable information. Plaintiff does not base her complaint on
misconduct that occurred beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The
statute of limitations does not warrant limiting Plaintiff’s discovery of these
matters that are relevant to Plaintiff’s demonstration of Defendant’s
discriminatory policies and practices.
To
establish a prima facie case for discrimination, Plaintiff must show that she was
a member of a protected class, she was qualified for the position sought or was
performing competently in the position held, she suffered an adverse employment
action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and some
other circumstance suggesting Defendant’s discriminatory motive. (Guz
v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355.) If proved, Plaintiff
will have established a presumption of discrimination. (Id.)
At
trial, the burden then shifts to defendant employer to rebut the presumption by
producing admissible evidence, sufficient to “raise [ ] a genuine issue of fact
and to justify a judgment for the [employer], that its action was taken for a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” (Guz
at 355–356.) If proof is sustained, the burden shifts back to the
plaintiff to establish that the employer’s proffered reasons were pretexts for
discrimination. (Guz
at 356.) This three-step, shifting burden of proof is articulated in (McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-803.)
Evidence
that may be relevant to any showing of pretext includes facts showing
Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff and Defendant’s general policy and practice
with respect to minority employment. Statistics as to petitioner's employment
policy and practice may be helpful to a determination of whether petitioner's
refusal to rehire respondent in this case conformed to a general pattern of
discrimination. (McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 804.)
Plaintiff’s
burden will then merge with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that
she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. She may succeed in this
either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more
likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's
proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. (McDonnell Douglas, at
804-805). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to ask a knowledgeable witness about
Defendant’s relationship with the auditors, correspondence with assemblyperson’s
regarding their April 2021 letter, and subsequent investigations and reports
produced. Plaintiff is entitled to discover additional witnesses who may have
information about Defendant’s policy and practices of discrimination as
described in published reports.
Whether
or not Plaintiff alleges disparate impact or disparate treatment is not
relevant to the scope of admissible discovery. The issue is Plaintiff’s ability
to proffer evidence showing intentional discrimination and/or that Defendant’s
legitimate business reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
Topics 31-33
These
topics relate to information concerning Defendant’s board meetings, minutes,
and agenda, and meeting minutes from Defendant’s Legal and Claims Committee
from January 1, 2011 to the present that reference or relate to the race,
ethnicity or gender of MWD employees including complaints of racial
discrimination and retaliation.
Defendant
asserts the same objections: relevance, calls for private financial information
of current or former employees other than Plaintiff, outside the scope of the
statute of limitations, mediation privilege, and attorney-client and work
product privilege. All objections are without merit for the same reasons
stated. Defendant does not cite any authority for refusing to produce a witness
based on what might be asked at a deposition. The topics as described by
Plaintiff are relevant and discoverable sufficient to require Defendant to
produce a person most knowledgeable on these topics. Defendant can move for a
protective order where questions violative of a privilege are asked.
These
topics are relevant to discover Defendant’s policies and practices on the
discriminatory issues alleged by Plaintiff if Plaintiff is to establish
intentional discrimination and/or that Defendant’s proffered reason for its
treatment of Plaintiff is pretextual.
Topics 34-38
These
topics relate to semi-annual reports on EEO policy relating specifically to
race, ethnicity or gender of Defendant’s employees; statistical information for
female program and unit managers; and Latino/Mexican employees working in such
positions. The topic relates to related data and statistics for team managers, Latino/Mexican
employees generally, and female employees generally, from January 2016 to the
present.
The
areas of inquiry are relevant to Plaintiff’s prima facie case of intentional
discrimination and establishing that Defendant’s proffered reasons are
pretextual, to the extent the data and statistics requested can show a policy
and practice of discrimination. On its face, the topics at issue do not request
financial information as Defendant argues, nor do the topics alone implicate
any privilege. The fact that Defendant does not require its employees to
identify their sex or gender is not relevant to Plaintiff’s ability to discover
statistical information to support a prima facie case. If such information does
not exist or cannot be compiled, a knowledgeable witness should so testify.
Even
if, as Defendant argues, it has already provided statistical information, this
does not warrant barring Plaintiff from seeking testimony about the statistical
information Defendant already provided. Defendant’s opinion that the requested
testimony will be of no benefit to Plaintiff is not relevant to the permissible
scope of discovery.
Regardless
of Defendant’s objections, it agreed to produce Brandon Patrick as the person
most knowledgeable. However, at the time of deposition, Mr. Patrick testified
that while he had access to the information, he did not try to obtain it prior
to his deposition. (Defendant’s Opp. Sep. Stmt. 30:20-26.)
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to
produce a person most knowledgeable to testify about the topics of inquiry at
issue in this motion within fifteen [15]days. As Plaintiff did not request
imposition of sanctions, none is imposed.