Motion to Compel Discovery in MOHAMMAD JOIYAH VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL| Trellis.Law

On August 06, 2018 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Joiyah,, Joiyah, Mohammad, and City And County Of San Francisco, Corporation Of Fine Arts Museums, Does 1 To 20, Inclusive, Fine Arts Museums Of San Francisco, for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

10/10/2019
Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
1 City Attorney
KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180
2 Chief Labor Attorney
JENNIFER DONNELLAN, State Bar #210795
3 Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
4 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
5 Telephone: (415) 554-3917
E-Mail: jennifer.donnellan@sfcityatty.org
6

7 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
8

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
12 MOHAMMED JOIYAH, Case No. CGC-18-568689
13 Plaintiff, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE (1)
14 VS.
Date Action Filed: August 6, 2018
15 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Trial Date: None Set
FRANCISCO; FINE ARTS MUSEUMS OF
16 SAN FRANCISCO; CORPORATION OF
FINE ARTS MUSEUMS, and DOES 1
17 through 20, inclusive,

18 Defendants.
19

21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
22 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF MOHAMMED JOIYAH

23 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

28
1 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689.docx
1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2 Defendant City and County of San Francisco (Defendant) requests that Plaintiff Mohammed

3 Joiyah (Plaintiff) produce the documents and tangible things specified in the requests below, which are

4 in her possession or under her control, or in the possession or under the control of her attorneys,

5 accountants, investigators, employees, representatives, or other agents. The production must be within

6 30 days of the date of service of these requests and addressed to Jennifer Donnellan, Deputy City

7 Attorney at the offices of the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Fox Plaza, Fifth

8 Floor, 1390 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102. These requests are continuing and

9 Plaintiffs responses must be supplemented if Plaintiff discovers, identifies, acquires, or locates

10 responsive documents after the original production in response to these requests.

11 In producing documents, Plaintiff must produce the original of each document requested

12 together with all non-identical copies and drafts of that document. Any comment, notation, or

13 marking appearing on any document, and not a part of the original, is to be considered a separate

14 document, and any draft, preliminary form, or superseded version of any document is also to be

15 considered a separate document.

16 All documents should be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained.

17 Documents should also be produced in the file, folder, envelope, or other container in which they are

18 kept or maintained. If for any reason the container cannot be produced, please produce copies of all

19 labels or other identifying markings. Documents attached to each other should not be separated.

20 If a document once existed, but has been lost, destroyed, or otherwise is no longer in Plaintiffs

21 possession, please identify the document and state all of the details concerning its loss or destruction,

22 including the name and address of the present custodian (if known).

23 If Plaintiff claims that the attorney-client privilege, or any other privilege, is applicable to any

24 document or portion of a document that is being withheld from production, please provide a privilege

25 log with the following information:

26 1. date of the document;

27 2. every author of the document;

28 3. every other person who prepared or participated in the preparation of the document;
2 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689.docx
1 4. every person who received the document;

2 5. every person from whom the document was received;

3 6. the present location of the document and all copies thereof;

4 7. every person having custody or control of the document and all copies thereof; and

5 8. sufficient further information concerning the document to explain the claim of privilege

6 and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of the claim.

7 Unless otherwise specified, the time period encompassed by the document requests set forth

8 below is from January 1, 2013 to the present.

9 DEFINITIONS

IO I. The terms "PLAINTIFF," "YOU," and "YOUR" refers to MOHAMMED JOIYAH,

11 including present or former agents, representatives, investigators, attorneys, or any other person(s)

12 purporting to act on his behalf.

13 2. A request for each document that "CONCERNS" or "RELATES TO" a subject matter

14 extends to each document that constitutes the subject matter or contains, concerns, supports, negates,

15 modifies, evidences, contradicts, criticizes, discusses, describes, records, reports, reflects or pertains to

16 the subject matter. Such a request extends further to any document that was prepared in connection

17 with, arises from, or is or has been collected, recorded, examined, or considered by, for, or on behalf

18 of any present or former agent, representative, officer, employee, attorney, board, committee,

19 subcommittee, or any other person acting or purporting to act on your behalf in relation to the subject

20 matter specified.

21 3. "PERSON" shall mean any natural person, entity, form, partnership, joint venture,

22 association, corporation, board, committee, subcommittee, subdivision, or any juridical person, or any

23 other legal entity.

24 4. The terms "DOCUMENT" and "DOCUMENTS" are used in their customary broad

25 sense, and mean any kind of printed, recorded, written, graphic, or photographic matter (including but

26 not limited to tape recordings or computer tapes or disks) of any kind or description, whether sent or

27 received or not, including originals, copies, reproductions, facsimiles, drafts, and both sides thereof,

28 and including, without limitation: papers; books; accounts; letters; models; photographs; drawings;
3 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\Iabor\Ii2018\181410\0l301689.docx
1 sketches; blueprints; objects; tangible things; correspondence; telegrams; cables; telex messages; e-

2 mail; memoranda; notes; notations; work papers; routing slips; intra and interoffice communications;

3 intra and interdepartmental communications; communications to, between, or among directors,

4 officers, agents, or employees; transcripts, minutes, reports, and recordings of telephone or other

5 conversations, or of interviews, or of conferences, or of committee meetings, or of other meetings;

6 affidavits; statements; summaries; opinions; court pleadings; reports; indices; studies; analyses;

7 forecasts; evaluations; contracts; licenses; agreements; invoices; notebooks; entries; ledgers; journals;

8 books or records of accounts; summaries of accounts; balance sheets; income statements;

9 questionnaires; answers to questionnaires; statistical records; advertisements; brochures; circulars;

10 bulletins; pamphlets; trade letters; desk calendars; appointment books; diaries; telephone logs; expense

11 accounts; lists; tabulations; charts; graphs; maps; surveys; sound recordings; data sheets; computer

12 tapes and disks; magnetic tapes; punch cards; computer printouts; data processing input and output;

13 computer files; computer programs; computer program coding sheets; microfilm; microfiche; all other

14 records kept by electronic, photographic, or mechanical means; and things similar to any of the

15 foregoing; all regardless of their author or origin.

16 5. The term "COMMUNICATION" refers to any transfer of information of any nature

17 whatsoever, whether by oral, written, electronic, or other means.

18 6. The term "DEFENDANT" refers to the City and County of San Francisco, and

19 includes, without limitation, its agents, attorneys, officials or managers, Departments and employees.

20 7. The term "HEALTH CARE PROVIDER" refers to any person, organization, or

21 institution, including their agents or employees, that practices the healing arts, and includes, but is not

22 limited to, doctors, physicians, physical therapists, counselors, chiropractors, psychologists,

23 psychiatrists, social workers, acupuncturists, massage therapists, hospitals, and clinics.

24 8. The term "COMPLAINT" refers to the complaint filed by YOU in this matter in San

25 Francisco Superior Court (Case No. CGC-18-568689).

26 9. The term "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS" shall mean compensation received by

27 PLAINTIFF from the DEFENDANT or ANY other INDIVIDUAL in addition to regular salaries,

28 wages, bonuses, or other monetary compensation. Those may include, but are not limited to, health,
4 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689.docx
1 dental or vision insurance benefits, retirement benefits, paid vacations, paid sick leave and other types

2 of paid leaves.

3 DOCUMENT REQUESTS

4 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 1:

5 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT'S alleged disability discrimination as

6 claimed in YOUR COMPLAINT.

7 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 2:

8 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT'S alleged failure to engage in interactive

9 process reasonable accommodation as claimed in YOUR COMPLAINT.

10 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 3:

11 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT'S alleged failure to provide reasonable

12 accommodation as claimed in YOUR COMPLAINT.

13 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 4:

14 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT'S alleged harassment as claimed in

15 YOUR COMPLAINT.

16 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 5:

17 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT'S alleged retaliation as claimed in YOUR

18 COMPLAINT.

19 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 6:

20 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT'S alleged failure to prevent as claimed in

21 YOURCOMPLAINT.

22 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 7:

23 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO measurement and/or evaluation of YOUR work

24 performance with DEFENDANT, including, but not limited to, ANY DOCUMENTS containing,

25 referring to, or memorializing commendation and criticism of your work performance, including ANY

26 responses by YOU.

27 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 8:

28 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED to ANY rules or policies of DEFENDANT that YOU contend
5 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689 .docx
1 were violated by DEFENDANT.

2 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 9:

3 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to or comprising ANY grievance or complaint filed by YOU

4 to any supervisor, human resources personnel, superior, union, or governmental agency in the course

5 of YOUR employment with the DEFENDANT regarding that employment.

6 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 10:

7 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATION between YOU and YOUR union

8 or union representative(s) concerning those matters alleged in the COMPLAINT.

9 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 11:

10 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to or comprising COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and

11 any PERSON, including any current or former DEFENDANT employee, RELATING TO the matters

12 alleged in the COMPLAINT.

13 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 12:

14 ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING, RELATING to or comprising any internal complaints

15 made by YOU to DEFENDANT concerning DEFENDANT'S alleged wrongful conduct as described

16 in the COMPLAINT.

17 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 13:

18 ALL DOCUMENTS provided by YOU to any governmental agency, including, but not limited

19 to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Fair Employment and

20 Housing, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, RELATING TO the matters alleged in the

21 COMPLAINT.

22 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 14:

23 ALL DOCUMENTS, including Right-to-Sue Notices, received by YOU from any

24 governmental agency, including, but not limited to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

25 the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

26 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 15:

27 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS YOU allege that YOU

28 were denied due to the allegedly wrongful actions of DEFENDANT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
6 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689.docx
1 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 16:

2 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to ANY witnesses to any of the alleged wrongful actions of

3 DEFENDANT as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

4 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 17:

5 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of YOUR economic damages, including, but not

6 limited to, medical expenses and lost wages, that YOU claim were or will be caused by the wrongful

7 conduct alleged in the COMPLAINT.

8 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 18:

9 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of YOUR non-economic damages that YOU claim

10 were or will be caused by the wrongful conduct alleged in the COMPLAINT.

11 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 19:

12 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any HEALTHCARE PROVIDER from which YOU have

13 sought or received care or treatment as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged in the COMPLAINT,

14 including, but not limited to, any physical illness or condition, mental illness, psychological condition,

15 or psychiatric condition.

16 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 20:

17 DOCUMENTS sufficient to provide the source and total monthly amount of all income and

18 benefits YOU received for each month from January 1, 2015, through the present from any source

19 other than the City and County of San Francisco.

20 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 21:

21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any efforts made by YOU to mitigate the damages YOU

22 allege any DEFENDANT caused YOU.

23 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 22:

24 All personal notes, notebooks, memoranda, diaries, calendars, journals, summaries of facts, or

25 other DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of YOUR allegations and claims in the COMPLAINT,

26 including, but not limited to, damages YOU allege DEFENDANT caused YOU. (This request

27 includes any content from YOUR personal social media profiles, including, but not limited to,

28 Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and Instagram.)
7 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689.docx
1 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 23:

2 All correspondence, including emails and text messages, RELATING TO any of YOUR

3 allegations and claims in the COMPLAINT, including, but not limited to, damages YOU allege

4 DEFENDANT caused YOU. (This request includes any emails from YOUR personal email addresses

5 and personal mobile telephone.)

6 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 24:

7 A current copy of YOUR resume.

9 Dated: September 6, 2018 DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
10 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER
Chief Labor Attorney
11 JENNIFE ONNELLAN
Deput C
12

15 Att eys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
16

28
8 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\181410\01301689.docx
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 Mohammed Joiyah v.City and County of San Francisco, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No.: CGC-18-568689
2
3 I, ESTHER CHUNG, declare as follows:
4 I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-
entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney's Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building,
5 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
6 On September 6, 2018, I served the following document(s):
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE (1)
8
on the following persons at the locations specified:
9 Joan Herrington Steven L. Derby
Bay Area Employment Law Celia McGuiness
10 5032 Woodminster Lane Anthony Goldsmith
Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Derby, McGuinness & Goldsmith, LLP
11 Tel: (510) 387-5626 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Fax: (510) 530-4725 Oakland, CA 94612
12 Email: jh@baelo.com Tel: (510) 987-8778
Attorneys/or Plaintiff Fax: (510) 359-4419
13 Email: info@dmglawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
in the manner indicated below:
15
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of
16 the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with
the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney's
17 Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed
for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day.
18
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
19 foregoing is true and correct.
20 Executed September 6, 2018, at San Francisco, California.
21 q.... /
22
23

28
9 CASE NO. CGC-18-568689
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (1) n:\labor\li2018\I 81410\01301689.docx
EXHIBIT C
Chung, Esther (CAT)

From: Donnellan, Jennifer (CAT)
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 1:44 PM
To: 'BAELO'
Cc: Steven Derby; Chung, Esther (CAT)
Subject: RE: Joiyah v. CCSF et al extension re discovery responses

Ms. Herrington,

I am very sorry to hear about your family medical issues. Of course, you can have an extension until October
30. If you need additional time, please let me know. I will be on my honeymoon from 11/12 until 12/3 and
therefore won't be reviewing documents during this time so I can provide you additional time if you need it.

Let's plan on talking when I return in December to select a date for Mr. Joiyah's depo.

I hope all goes well with your family issues.

Jennifer Donnellan
Deputy City Attorney
Office of the San Francisco City Attorney
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415.554.3917
jennifer.donnellan@sfcityatty.org

*********Confidentiality Notice**********************

This electronic message transmission contains information that may be confidential or protected by the
attorney‐client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original
message.

Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail.

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: BAELO
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 1:37 PM
To: Donnellan, Jennifer (CAT)
Cc: Steven Derby
Subject: Joiyah v. CCSF et al extension re discovery responses

Per my voicemail to you this morning, I am seeking an extension of Mr.
Joiyah's written discovery responses until October 30, 2018. As I explained, I will be visiting my sister in
Florida from October 9 through 23, 2018, and am dealing with medical issues with the woman I consider my
step‐mother and with my sister's partner, both of who have life‐threatening conditions at this time.
1
Also, Mr. Joiyah is currently on medical leave for several months so we will need to change his deposition date
from October 24 to a different date. I will consult with Mr. Joiyah's psychiatrist about when he believes Mr.
Joiyah will be sufficiently recovered to be able to undergo his deposition and give his best testimony.

Please reply to this email to confirm that you will grant me an extension for Mr. Joiyah's discovery responses.

‐‐
Joan Herrington
Bay Area Employment Law Office
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602‐2614
(510) 387‐5626 mobile
(510) 530‐4725 fax
jh@baelo.com

2
EXHIBIT D
Chung, Esther (CAT)

From: Donnellan, Jennifer (CAT)
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:47 AM
To: 'BAELO'
Cc: Chung, Esther (CAT)
Subject: Joiyah v. CCSF

Ms. Harrington,

Per your request, the City agrees that Plaintiff has until November 27th to serve discovery responses to the
outstanding discovery, namely, Employment Form Interrogatories & RFPDs.

I hope things go as well as possible with your family issues.

Regards,

Jennifer Donnellan, Esq
Deputy City Attorney
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
1390 Market St., 7th Floor
(415) 554‐3917 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook Twitter Instagram

1
EXHIBIT E
Chung, Esther (CAT)

From: Chung, Esther (CAT)
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:04 PM
To: 'Joan Herrington'; Donnellan, Jennifer (CAT)
Cc: 'Steve Derby'
Subject: RE: Joiyah v. CCSF

Dear Ms. Herrington:

Thank you for your email and voicemail regarding an extension of time for your client’s responses to the City’s
Request for Production of Document, Set One and Form Interrogatories – Employment Set One. I have spoken
with Jonathan Rolnick, the attorney monitoring Ms. Donnellan’s cases during her absence, and he has
authorized me to extend the deadline for discovery responses. Please note, the requested date
December 15, 2018 is a Saturday. We have continued your discovery deadline to Friday,
December 15, 2018. We look forward to receiving your client’s discovery on December 14, 2018.

Respectfully yours,

Esther Chung
Legal Secretary, Labor Department
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554‐4204 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook Twitter Instagram

************CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***********************

This electronic message transmission contains information that may be confidential or protected by the attorney‐client
privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the original message.

Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail.

From: Joan Herrington
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:53 AM
To: Donnellan, Jennifer (CAT)
Cc: Chung, Esther (CAT) ; 'Steve Derby'
Subject: RE: Joiyah v. CCSF

I am seeking a further extension of Plaintiff Mohammad Joiyah’s responses to the City’s discovery requests. I
know that Jennifer is out of the office until December 4. I was hoping for an extension to December 15,
2018. Please respond asap to let me know.

Joan Herrington
Bay Area Employment Law Office
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
1
(510) 530-4078 ext. 108 work
(510) 387-5626 cell
(510) 530-4725 fax
jh@baelo.com

Privileged and Confidential
This electronic message contains information from Bay Area Employment Law Office which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege
and/or the work product doctrine and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or
agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of
the content of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this
message and delete the original message.

From: Donnellan, Jennifer (CAT)
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 11:47 AM
To: 'BAELO'
Cc: Chung, Esther (CAT)
Subject: Joiyah v. CCSF

Ms. Harrington,

Per your request, the City agrees that Plaintiff has until November 27th to serve discovery responses to the
outstanding discovery, namely, Employment Form Interrogatories & RFPDs.

I hope things go as well as possible with your family issues.

Regards,

Jennifer Donnellan, Esq
Deputy City Attorney
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
1390 Market St., 7th Floor
(415) 554‐3917 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook Twitter Instagram

2
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
1 Joan Herrington, SBN 178988
Bay Area Employment Law Office
2 5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
3 (510) 387-5626 phone
(510) 530-4725 fax
4 jh@baelo.com
5 Steven L. Derby, SBN 148372
Celia McGuiness, SBN 159420
6 Anthony Goldsmith, SBN 125621
DERBY, McGUINNESS & GOLDSMITH, LLP
7 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
8 (510) 987-8778 phone
(510) 359-4419 fax
9 info@dmglawfirm.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Mohammad Joiyah
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNA
12
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
13
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
14
15
Mohammad Joiyah, Case No.
16
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
17 v. FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE) BY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
18 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; FRANCISCO.
FINE ARTS MUSEUMS OF SAN FRANCISCO;
19 CORPORATION OF FINE ARTS MUSEUMS,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

___________________________________________________________________________________
-1-
MJ-CCSF RRPD-1
PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
1
2 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF MOHAMMAD JOIYAH
3 SET NO.: ONE
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
5
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2031, and other applicable law, PLAINTIFF
6
MOHAMMAD JOIYAH. ("Responding Party" or "Plaintiff") hereby responds to DEFENDANT
7
CCSF’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One as follows:
8
GENERAL STATEMENT
9
Plaintiff has not fully completed investigation of this case, has not fully completed discovery and
10
has not completed preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such
11
information and documents presently available to and specifically known to Plaintiff. It is anticipated
12
that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts,
13
or add meaning to the known facts, all of which could lead to changes in the responses herein set forth.
14
The following responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to produce documents or
15
evidence regarding any subsequently discovered fact or facts which Plaintiff may later recall or learn.
16
Plaintiff accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as additional facts are
17
ascertained, analyses are made and legal research is completed.
18
Plaintiff generally objects to each request to the extent it seeks documents subject to the
19
attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and the right of privacy set forth in the
20
California and U.S. Constitutions as well as state and federal statute and incorporates by reference those
21
objections in response to each Request as full set forth therein.
22
Plaintiff did perform a diligent search, and a reasonable inquiry was made in order to comply
23
with these demands pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.230.
24
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
25
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 1:
26
27 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT’S alleged disability discrimination as

28 claimed in YOUR COMPLAINT.

___________________________________________________________________________________
-2-
MJ-CCSF RRPD-1
1 RESPONSE TO RFP No. 1
2 This request is in the improper form, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section
3 2031.030(c)(1) as it fails to designate the documents requested by either specifically describing each
4 individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item. Further, due to its improper form
5 and lack of particularity, this request requires Plaintiff to speculate as to what documents may or may
6 not be responsive to this request.
7 This request is overly broad, burdensome and harassing as many, if not the majority, of
8 documents responsive to this request are not only equally available to propounding party, but to some
9 extent exclusively available to propounding party to the exclusion of Plaintiff.
10 This request is overly broad, burdensome and harassing as the documents requested are publicly
11 available and, thus, equally available to propounding party.
12 Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent it calls for speculation in that it calls for knowledge
13 outside the scope of Plaintiff’s own personal knowledge. (Cal. Ev. §§ 702, 802).
14 This request impermissibly seeks premature disclosure of expert witness testimony and work
15 product, in violation and circumvention of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, et seq.
16 This request seeks documents that may be protected from disclosure by Plaintiff’s Constitutional
17 Right to Privacy and/or the Constitutional Right to Privacy of third parties.
18 This request seeks documents that are privileged under the Labor Code § 3762, subd. (c), Civil
19 Code, § 56, et seq., and Government Code, § 12940, subd. (f)(2), except for directly relevant medical
20 and psychological information relevant to the employer’s need to provide reasonable accommodation.
21 To the extent this request is for production of social media, it violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy,
22 as it is not calculated to lead to admissible discovery or described with reasonable particularity. Mailhoit
23 v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566, 571 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Davenport v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
24 Ins. Co., No. 3:11-CV-632-J-JBT, 2012 WL 555759, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012). The party seeking
25 disclosure makes no threshold showing of relevance. See Mailhoit 285 F.R.D. 566, 571 (C.D. Cal.
26 2012); Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430, 434-35 (S.D.
27 Ind. 2010) ("EEOC"); Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2013 WL 1176504 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2013);
28 Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 287 F.R.D. 387, 388 (E.D. Mich. 2012). Calcor Space Facility v.

___________________________________________________________________________________
-3-
MJ-CCSF RRPD-1
1 Superior Ct. (1997) 53 CA 4th 216, [document requests must be specific].
2 Plaintiff’s communications with the Employment Development Department are privileged and
3 are not discoverable. A statutory privilege exists pursuant to Evidence. Code, §1040 and Unemp. Ins.
4 Code, §§ 2111. By statute, the findings and judgment “shall not be used as evidence” in any separate or
5 subsequent litigation or arbitration proceeding between employer and employee. UI Code § 1960; See
6 Pichon v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1989) 212 CA3d 488, 502. See also, Crest Catering v. Superior
7 Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 274, 277; Pratt v. Local 683, Film Technicians, (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 545,
8 562.
9 Subject to and without waiving objections, upon diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff
10 will produce all relevant, non-privileged documents in his custody, possession, and control. Plaintiff has
11 also requested production of his medical and psychological records from his health care providers and
12 will produce all directly relevant, non-privileged documents on receipt.
13 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO. 2:
14 ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to DEFENDANT’S alleged failure to engage in interactive
15 process reasonable accommodation as claimed in YOUR COMPLAINT.
16 RESPONSE TO RFP No. 2
17 This request is in the improper form, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section
18 2031.030(c)(1) as it fails to designate the documents requested by either specifically describing each
19 individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item. Further, due to its improper form
20 and lack of particularity, this request requires Plaintiff to speculate as to what documents may or may
21 not be responsive to this request.
22 This request is overly broad, burdensome and harassing as many, if not the majority, of
23 documents responsive to this request are not only equally available to propounding party, but to some
24 extent exclusively available to propounding party to the exclusion of Plaintiff.
25 This request is overly broad, burdensome and harassing as the documents requested are publicly
26 available and, thus, equally available to propounding party.
27 Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent it calls for speculation in that it calls for knowledge
28

___________________________________________________________________________________
-4-
MJ-CCSF RRPD-1
1 outside the scope of Plaintiff’s own personal knowledge. (Cal. Ev. §§ 702, 802).
2 This request impermissibly seeks premature disclosure of expert witness testimony and work
3 product, in violation and circumvention of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, et seq.
4 This request seeks documents that may be protected from disclosure by Plaintiff’s Constitutional
5 Right to Privacy and/or the Constitutional Right to Privacy of third parties.
6 This request seeks documents that are privileged under the Labor Code § 3762, subd. (c), Civil
7 Code, § 56, et seq., and Government Code, § 12940, subd. (f)(2), except for directly relevant medical
8 and psychological information relevant to the employer’s need to provide reasonable accommodation.
9 To the extent this request is for production of social media, it violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy,
10 as it is not calculated to lead to admissible discovery or described with reasonable particularity. Mailhoit
11 v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566, 571 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Davenport v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
12 Ins. Co., No. 3:11-CV-632-J-JBT, 2012 WL 555759, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012). The party seeking
13 disclosure makes no threshold showing of relevance. See Mailhoit 285 F.R.D. 566, 571 (C.D. Cal.
14 2012); Equal Em

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 10, 2019

Case Filing Date

August 06, 2018

County

Parties

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Defendant
CORPORATION OF FINE ARTS MUSEUMS Defendant
DERBY, STEVEN LEO Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DERBY, STEVEN LEO Attorney for the Plaintiff
DOES 1 TO 20, INCLUSIVE Defendant
DONNELLAN, JENNIFER A Attorney for the Defendant
FINE ARTS MUSEUMS OF SAN FRANCISCO Defendant
HERRINGTON, JOAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HERRINGTON, JOAN Attorney for the Plaintiff
JOIYAH, Appellant
JOIYAH, Plaintiff
JOIYAH, MOHAMMAD Appellant
JOIYAH, MOHAMMAD Plaintiff
KOSKI, TREVOR J. Attorney for the Defendant
LORDAN, JOSEPH R. Attorney for the Defendant
PIERCE, ANDREW FIELD Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PIERCE, ANDREW FIELD Attorney for the Plaintiff
Pro Per Attorney for the Appellant
Pro Per Attorney for the Plaintiff
YAN, MATTHEW Attorney for the Defendant
Robert Kane Attorney
Rebecca Wildman-Tobriner Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dennis Herrera Attorneys for Defendants
Katharine Porter Attorneys for Defendants
Jessica Pliner Attorneys for Defendants
Sumy Kim Attorneys for Defendants
Kate Kimberlin Attorneys for Defendants
Rebecca Waldman Attorney
Anthony Goldsmith Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Celia McGuinness Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nadeem Makada Attorney
Robert Sullivan Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Discovery: MOHAMMAD JOIYAH VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties