Tyler et al v. San Diego, City of et al, No. 3:2014cv01179 - Document 139 (S.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 95 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents from the City. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 4/29/15. (dlg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tyler et al v. San Diego, City of et al Doc. 139 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Case No.: 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Michelle Tyler, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents from the City vs. 6 City of San Diego, et al., Defendants. 7 [ECF No. 95] 8 9 10 11 The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents from Defendant the City of San Diego (ECF No. 95) as set forth below. 1. The City’s Objections. 12 The City makes, and purports to rely on, numerous recurring objections: 13 a. Vague. The City does not purport to rely on this objection in withholding 14 documents, so the Court does not rule on it. 15 b. Overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeking material not relevant 16 to any claim or defense. This objection is addressed in the context of the 17 particular requests, below. 18 19 c. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The City’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) objection to producing Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) is overruled as the City 20 1 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Dockets.Justia.com 1 has not sufficiently shown that the information is not reasonably accessible due 2 to burden or expense. 3 In its Amended Requests for Production, Plaintiffs include ESI in their 4 definition of documents. (ECF No. 95-4, p. 3.) In December, 2014, the parties 5 met and conferred as to search locations and search terms for the City’s ESI 6 production of documents. (ECF No. 109-1, p. 2.) Plaintiffs proposed search 7 locations and search terms which the City deemed unworkable and overly 8 burdensome. (Id., pp. 2-3.) On February 25, 2015, the City proposed search 9 terms, which were not acceptable to Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 95-3, p. 2.) On 10 March 5, 2015, the parties agreed that the search locations should include email 11 accounts for the Filner Mayoral Staff, the Human Resources Managerial Staff, 12 the Equal Employment Investigations Staff, and the City Councilmembers for 13 the period of January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2013. (ECF No. 95-4, p 4.) The 14 parties did not agree as to whether the email account of City Attorney Jan 15 Goldsmith should be searched. (Id.) The parties did not agree to search terms. 16 Citing to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B), the City asserted 17 in its Response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Request for Production of 18 Documents (Set One) that “The City will not search all of its ESI without 19 clearly limited search terms and protocols that minimize cost, including, if 20 necessary, cost allocation to Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 95-5 (throughout).) It 2 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 appears the City has, in fact, undertaken no ESI search and has produced no 2 responsive ESI. 3 Rule 26(b)(2)(B) allows for a two-tier approach to the discovery of ESI. 4 See, e.g., U.S. v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., No. 10cv1401-JLS (WVG), 2015 5 WL 818032, at *10-*12 (S.D. Cal. Feb.20, 2015). First, “[a] responding party 6 should produce electronically stored information that is relevant, not privileged 7 and reasonably accessible, subject to the [Rule 26](b)(2)(C) limitations that 8 apply to all discovery.” See Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 9 Amendments to Rule 26(b)(2); S.S. Gensler, 1 Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure, Rules and Commentary RULE 26 (Mar. 2014) (“discovery from 11 reasonably accessible ESI sources—e.g., active computer files or e-mail 12 records—proceeds in the same manner as would discovery from paper sources. 13 . . . No special request must be made, and no special standards apply.”) 14 (footnotes omitted). 15 Second, upon assessing the scope of accessible ESI, the parties may 16 confer over searching less accessible sources of ESI. Advisory Committee 17 Note to Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (May 27, 2005) 18 (“Lawyers sophisticated in these problems are developing a two-tier practice in 19 which they first sort through the information that can be provided from easily 20 accessed sources and then determine whether it is necessary to search the 3 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 difficult-to-access sources.”). Should the parties reach an impasse, the party 2 from whom discovery is requested may obtain a protective order if they present 3 specific information – generally supported by an affidavit or declaration – 4 demonstrating that the information is not reasonably accessible because of 5 undue burden or cost. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B); Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 6 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981) (“To establish ‘good cause’ for a protective order 7 . . . courts have insisted on a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as 8 distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements”) (citation and 9 internal quotation omitted); City of Seattle v. Prof’l Basketball Club, LLC, No. 10 07cv1620, 2008 WL 539809, *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2008) (“In opposing 11 discovery on the grounds of overbreadth, a party has the burden ‘to provide 12 sufficient detail in terms of time, money and procedure required to produce the 13 requested documents.’”). 14 Importantly, “Rule [26(b)(2)(B)] should not be invoked as a means to 15 forestall the production of materials that are admittedly relevant and readily 16 accessible.” Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 01cv1644, 2010 WL 17 502721, *19 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010). As with all the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure, Rule 26(b)(2)(B) must “be construed and administered to secure the 19 just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 4 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 In this case, the City rejected Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms and 2 protocols. But the City did not, then, use search terms and protocols it deemed 3 reasonable to produce responsive electronically stored documents. Nor did the 4 City seek a protective order from the Court. Either of these would have been 5 preferable to what the City did: conduct no search and allow the production date 6 to come and go without producing any ESI. See Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. 7 Ins. Co. , No. 12cv257, 2014 WL 4373210, *5 (M.D. La. Sept. 3, 2014) (“The 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mandate that the parties agree on 9 search criteria for ESI . . . . Failure to reach an agreement on search terms does 10 not relieve [responding party] of its obligation to respond to discovery requests. 11 [Responding party] could have conducted its own search for responsive, non- 12 privileged ESI and produced those documents . . . within the timeframe 13 allowed by the court. In the alternative, [responding party] could have sought 14 relief from the court . . . .”). 15 The document requests at issue seek relevant information from the City. 16 In its opposition to this motion to compel, the City has not met its burden to 17 show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden 18 or cost. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The City attaches a chart showing the 19 number of email hits for individual search terms, but not for search terms run 20 conjunctively (i.e. “Filner” alone, and “sex” alone, but not “Filner” and “sex” in 5 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 the same email). (ECF No. 109-3.) Furthermore, the City offers no evidence of 2 the effort or cost involved in conducting the ESI search and production upon 3 which the Court could conclude that the burden or expense of the proposed 4 discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 5 The City shall produce responsive ESI by May 13, 2015 from the 6 accounts of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and the agreed upon custodians set 7 forth above. 8 d. Attorney-client privilege. The Court reserves its ruling on the City’s 9 assertions of the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. The 10 privilege log before the Court is insufficient for Plaintiffs and the Court to 11 evaluate the validity of the assertions of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 12 The City shall serve its final privilege log on Plaintiffs by May 13, 2015 and 13 that log shall identify for each document: the date of authorship, the identity 14 and position of its author(s), the identity and position of its recipient(s), the 15 location, source and access rights to the document (such that it can be 16 determined who would have access to each document), a cast of characters (to 17 understand the roles of all authors and recipients), a more detailed document 18 description, and a more detailed explanation as to why the document is being 19 withheld (without revealing information itself privileged). Plaintiff is granted 20 6 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 leave to file a motion seeking to compel specific documents listed on the 2 privilege log on or before May 20, 2015. 3 e. Personal information. The Court reserves its ruling on the City’s privacy 4 objections. The City has asserted that certain requests seek documents “that 5 contain the personal information of the City’s employees and other third parties. 6 To protect the privacy rights of these individuals, the City will not produce this 7 information.” 8 Specifically as to Amended Request 18 for Filner’s personnel file, the 9 City objects that “this request for production seeks documents that contain a 10 City’s employee’s personal information ‘the disclosure of which would 11 constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Cal. Gov’t Code § 12 6254; see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552. To protect the privacy rights of this individual, 13 the City will not produce this information.” 14 The City has included in its privilege log documents it is withholding as a 15 result of this claim of privacy, but has failed to provide a privilege log which is 16 adequate for Plaintiffs and the Court to evaluate the validity of the assertion of 17 privacy. Furthermore, the City does not indicate that it has produced 18 documents with personal information redacted, and, instead, appears to have 19 fully withheld any documents which contain any information the City deems to 20 be “personal.” 7 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 The City is to review each document being withheld based on a claim of 2 privacy, produce documents if appropriate (redacting if necessary), and cure the 3 deficiencies identified above with its final privilege log by May 13, 2015. As a 4 protective order may be appropriate to govern the parties’ use of documents 5 containing private information, the City is granted leave to file a joint or ex 6 parte (if the parties are unable to agree) motion for a protective order addressing 7 the parties’ use of the discovery by May 8, 2015. As to any documents the City 8 seeks to withhold (or produces in redacted form) on the basis of privacy, the 9 City is to file a motion for protective order addressing why each document 10 should be excused from production by May 20, 2015. 11 f. Equally available. The City’s equally available objection is overruled. 12 The City asserts that Plaintiffs’ requests seek documents that are equally 13 available to Plaintiffs and states, “The City will not produce these [unspecified] 14 documents because this request is burdensome and harassing as these 15 documents are equally available to the Plaintiffs.” Other than referencing 16 general categories of documents (those in propounding parties’ possession, 17 those in court files, and published documents), the City does not identify which 18 documents are being withheld, and does not set forth how production of the 19 documents that are within the City’s custody and control is burdensome and 20 oppressive. Thus, the City has failed to establish that the documents can be 8 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 obtained from another source that is “more convenient, less burdensome, or less 2 expensive” than the City producing what is in its possession. This objection is 3 overruled. On or before May 13, 2015, the City is to produce all responsive 4 documents within its custody and control, notwithstanding their potential equal 5 availability Plaintiffs, other than documents produced by Plaintiffs or part of the 6 court docket in this case. 7 g. Mediation privilege. (RFP 2.) The City responds that Request 2 seeks 8 documents which are allegedly protected by a “mediation privilege,” but fails to 9 identify the documents to which it refers. The City states it “will not produce 10 these documents.” The City has not identified any documents in its privilege 11 log that it purports to be withholding based upon “mediation privilege.” By 12 May 13, 2015, the City must supplement its response to attest that it is not 13 withholding any documents based upon “mediation privilege” or identify with 14 particularity any such documents being withheld in its final privilege log. 15 h. Deliberative and mental process privileges. (RFP 2.) The City responds 16 that the request seeks documents which are allegedly protected by “the 17 deliberative and mental process privileges.” The City states it “will not produce 18 these documents.” The only documents the City has identified in its privilege 19 log that it purports to be withholding on this basis are “Draft Memos and emails 20 dated 7-14-2-15 by Todd Gloria.” By May 13, 2015, the City must identify 9 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 more particularly the documents being withheld based on these privileges in its 2 final privilege log. 3 i. Sources of responsive discovery. Although not associated with an express 4 objection, certain of the City’s responses purport to limit the locations the City 5 will search for documents, as follows: “City is conducting a search . . . from 6 Filner’s (former) staff still employed by the City, the City’s Equal Employment 7 Investigations Office, and the City’s Human Resources Department.” The City 8 is not excused from conducting a reasonable search for all non-privileged 9 responsive documents in City’s custody and control, regardless of location. 10 2. The Court’s Rulings as to Specific Requests. 11 On or before May 13, 2015, the City shall provide Plaintiffs with both amended 12 written responses to Plaintiffs’ amended document requests and the City’s final 13 document production in response to the Court’s rulings herein. The Court’s rulings 14 as to the specific document requests are set forth in the chart below: 15 No. Language of Amended Request 16 17 1 18 19 20 All 2013 reports CONCERNING FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT or ABUSIVE conduct. (For this question, the term “reports” means a written investigative report, Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is overruled as to the relevant time period and is sustained only to the extent the request seeks documents concerning abusive conduct that is not sexually harassing or sexually 10 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 No. Language of Amended Request 2 3 4 5 6 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 internal investigation, account, story, rundown, chronicle, history, outline, narrative, version, blow by blow, write up, description, information, message, opinion, record, statement, and or a declaration.) All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by the CITY, CITY department directors, CITY Directors (including Donna Frye), CITY department heads, CITY managerial employees, CITY supervisors, CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, and CITY council members, or otherwise in its or their possession, custody or control, CONCERNING any oral or written report, allegation, charge or complaint (regardless of how the CITY characterizes the report, allegation, charge or complaint), whether informal or formal, about FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT. All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by the CITY, CITY department directors, CITY Directors (including Donna Frye), CITY department heads, CITY managerial employees, CITY supervisors, CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, and CITY council members, or otherwise in its or their possession, custody or control, CONCERNING any oral or written report, allegation, charge or complaint (regardless of how the CITY Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense discriminatory. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is overruled. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained. Relevant documents related to abusive conduct that is of a sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory nature will be responsive to Amended Request 1. Consistent with the Court’s prior orders related to the scope of deposition testimony, and for the reasons set forth therein, documents concerning abusive conduct that is not 11 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 No. Language of Amended Request 2 3 4 5 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5 characterizes the report, allegation, charge or complaint), whether formal or informal, that FILNER was allegedly ABUSIVE. All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by the CITY, CITY department directors, CITY Directors (including Donna Frye), CITY department heads, CITY managerial employees, CITY supervisors, CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, and CITY council members, or otherwise in its or their possession, custody or control, CONCERNING any oral or written report, allegation, charge or complaint (regardless of how the CITY characterizes the report, allegation, charge or complaint), whether formal or informal, that FILNER allegedly needed any type of therapy. All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by the CITY, CITY department directors, CITY Directors, CITY department heads, CITY managerial employees, CITY supervisors, CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, and CITY council members, or otherwise in its or their possession, custody or control, CONCERNING any oral or written report, allegation, charge or complaint of SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT (regardless of how the CITY characterizes the report, allegation, charge or complaint), against the CITY, CITY department directors, CITY Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory need not be produced. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is overruled as to the relevant time period; overruled as to the sources to be searched; and sustained only to the extent the request seeks documents concerning a need for therapy if specifically and clearly unrelated to issues of sexual harassment and/or sexual discrimination. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained in part. Balancing the needs of the case against the City’s burden, the Objection 2 is overruled in so far as the City shall produce responsive documents for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present concerning any report, allegation, charge or complaint of sexual discrimination or harassment against the listed positions other than the non-supervisory positions within the City’s mayoral staff and security staff. 12 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 16 17 18 19 20 Directors, CITY department heads, CITY managerial employees, CITY supervisors, CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, and CITY council members, from January 1, 2007 to the present. All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any CITY supervisor’s knowledge Of FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT. Al1 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any CITY supervisor’s knowledge that FILNER was allegedly ABUSIVE. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is overruled. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained. Relevant documents related to knowledge of abusive conduct that is of a sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory nature will be responsive to Amended Request 6. Consistent with the Court’s prior orders related to the scope of deposition testimony, and for the reasons set forth therein, documents concerning knowledge of abusive conduct that is not sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory need not be produced. All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) any CITY supervisor’s knowledge that is overruled as to the relevant time FILNER allegedly needed any type of period; overruled as to the sources to therapy in 2013. be searched; and sustained only to the extent the request seeks documents concerning knowledge of a need for therapy if specifically and clearly unrelated to issues of sexual harassment and/or sexual discrimination. 13 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 No. Language of Amended Request 2 3 9 4 5 6 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 14 15 16 17 Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) any CITY Council person’s knowledge of is overruled. FILNER's alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT. All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained. Relevant documents any CITY Council person’s knowledge related to knowledge of abusive that FILNER was allegedly abusive. conduct that is of a sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory nature will be responsive to Amended Request 9. Consistent with the Court’s prior orders related to the scope of deposition testimony, and for the reasons set forth therein, documents concerning knowledge of abusive conduct that is not sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory need not be produced. All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) any CITY Council person’s knowledge is overruled as to the relevant time that FILNER may have needed any type period; overruled as to the sources to of therapy. be searched; and sustained only to the extent the request seeks documents concerning knowledge of a need for therapy if specifically and clearly unrelated to issues of sexual harassment and/or sexual discrimination. 18 19 13 20 All 2013 DOCUMENTS reviewed by the San Diego City Council advising City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is overruled. 14 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense 2 3 4 5 16 6 7 8 them that the City was, or may be, liable for FILNER’S alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT. All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING FILNER’S Chief(s) of Staff and or Deputy Chief(s) of Staff, (including but not limited to Vince Hall, Allen Jones and Lee Burdick), and FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT or ABUSIVE conduct. 9 10 17 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any member of FILNER’S security staff and FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT or ABUSIVE conduct. 18 FILNER’S personnel file. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained, in part, as to the relevant time period. Consistent with Plaintiffs’ other requests, the request is limited to 2013 documents. Further, City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained to the extent the request seeks documents concerning abusive conduct that is not sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained, in part, as to the relevant time period. Consistent with Plaintiffs’ other requests, the request is limited to 2013 documents. Further, City’s Objection 2 is sustained to the extent the request seeks documents concerning abusive conduct that is not sexually harassing or sexually discriminatory. City’s Objection 2 is sustained to the extent the request seeks documents concerning a nonsupervisory member of Filner’s security staff’s alleged sexual discrimination or harassment or abusive conduct. The City’s only objection is to privacy. The Court’s ruling as to this request is set forth above in Section 1.e. 15 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense 25, [Requests not restated here.] The City makes no objection that 26, request is overly broad, oppressive, 28burdensome, and seeks material not 35 relevant to any claim or defense. The City is to produce responsive documents subject to the rulings set forth above in Section 1. The City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, 40 DOCUMENT(s) showing the CITY’S etc.) is sustained. The City is to agreement to not discriminate while produce DOCUMENT(s) showing the administering federal financial funds or CITY’S agreement to not discriminate disbursements in 2013, including those while administering federal financial earmarked for veterans assistance, funds or disbursements in 2013 services or programs. earmarked for veterans assistance, services or programs. City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, etc.) 41 DOCUMENT(s) between the federal is sustained. City is to produce government and the CITY from January DOCUMENT(s) between the federal 1, 2007 to the present CONCERNING government and the CITY from 2013 any oral or written report, allegation, CONCERNING any oral or written charge, or complaint (regardless of how report, allegation, charge, or complaint the CITY characterizes the report, (regardless of how the CITY suggestion, allegation, charge or complaint) that the CITY may have been characterizes the report, suggestion, or was discriminating while administering allegation, charge or complaint) that federal financial funds or disbursements, the CITY may have been or was discriminating while administering including without limitation funds for veterans assistance, services or programs. federal financial funds or disbursements for veterans assistance, services or programs. City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, etc.) 42 All DOCUMENTS that show that the is overruled. CITY was informed or knew that it must comply with federal nondiscrimination requirements as a condition for receiving federal funding or 16 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 1 No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific objections that request is overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeks material not relevant to any claim or defense 2 3 4 5 44 6 7 8 9 10 47 11 12 federal disbursements of money for veterans’ assistance, services or programs in 2012-2013. All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the August 2013 Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s complaint against the CITY, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS that show that the CITY failed to provide sex harassment prevention training, or sex discrimination prevention training, to its supervisory employees, including elected and appointed officials. All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or which support CITY attorney Jan Goldsmith’s statements to Tony Perry of the Los Angeles Times that Mayor FILNER needed therapy in February 2013. 13 48 14 15 16 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or which support the CITY or CITY attorney Jan Goldsmith’s decision to hire a psychologist to render an opinion about FILNER, and a copy of the psychologist’s report. City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, etc.) is overruled. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained only to the extent the request seeks documents concerning a need for therapy if specifically and clearly unrelated to issues of sexual harassment and/or sexual discrimination. City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) is sustained only to the extent the request seeks documents concerning a need for a psychological report if specifically and clearly unrelated to issues of sexual harassment and/or sexual discrimination. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2015 20 17 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
