Motion to Compel Discovery with Sanctions in Randolph, Teresa vs Trustees of the California State University et al| Trellis.Law

On April 19, 2019 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Randolph, Teresa, and Daley, Cynthia, Larson, Debra, State Of California, Trustees Of The California State University, for (36) Unlimited Wrongful Termination in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
1
Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law
2 CSB 276924 11/5/2019
dimitre@mind.net
3 PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
4 Telephone: 541-890-5022
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6
COUNTY OF BUTTE
7
)
8 TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual, )
)
9 Plaintiff )
)
10 vs. )
) Case No. 19CV01226
11 )
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL;
12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF ) MEMORANDM OF POINTS AND
CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND ) AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION
13 DEBRA LARSON ) OF THOMAS DIMITRE IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
14 ) FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
) OF DOCUMENTS, AND MONETARY
15 Defendants ) SANCTIONS
)
16
HEARING DATE: November 13, 2019
17
HEARING TIME: 9:00 AM
18
JUDGE: HONORABLE ROBERT
19
GLUSMAN
20
DEPT: 10
21
TRIAL DATE: NONE
22

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1
1 This is Plaintiff, Teresa Randolph’s Motion to Compel production of documents from

2 Defendant.
3
Despite Plaintiff’s 1st Request for Production of Documents, that includes eighty eight
4
requests being emailed to Defendant on April 25, 2019, and again on June 19, 2019, no
5
documents have been received – not one page.
6

7 While Defendant did provide a response on July 24, 2019, it is filled with outlandish

8 template objections that do not comport with California law regarding discovery responses.
9
Defendants’ template driven and overly broad, inapplicable objections are simply an
10
attempt by Defendant to withhold documents that Plaintiff is entitled to. The Court should not
11
allow Defendant to withhold documents and should penalize Defendant by ordering it to pay
12

13 Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in attempting to force compliance.

15
1. MEET AND CONFER
16
Plaintiff counsel had a telephonic conversation with Defendant’s counsel regarding
17
Defendant’s refusal to provide ANY documents in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for
18

19 Production of Documents on July 22, 2019. See Dimitre Sworn Dec. During that phone call,

20 Defendant counsel stated that he had “a few” of the requests that he had objections to. Id.
21 Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Defendant counsel provide a list of those few requests that he
22
objected to within a couple of days. Id. Defendant counsel agreed to do so. Id. On July 24,
23
2019, Plaintiff received a Response to its 1st RFP. Each and every request had numerous
24

25
objections, most of which were proforma. Exhibit 1.

26 On or about August 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel had another phone call with Defendant
27 counsel reminding him that where he had promised to provided a short list of objections to
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 2
1 requests, that he had instead provided a proforma objection response. Dimitre Sworn

2 Declaration. Plaintiff asked him when he would provide documents and Defendant would not
3
give Plaintiff an answer, or a date that documents would be produced. Id.
4
On September 6, 2019, in a last ditch effort to reach an agreement with Defendant
5
counsel regarding production of documents, Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant counsel and
6

7 asked if he was prepared to provide the documents that were requested. Id. Instead of a

8 response, Defendant’s counsel insisted his objections were legitimate. Id. No agreement was
9
reached. Id.
10
Plaintiff also sent numerous emails to Defendant over three months in multiple attempts
11
to elicit a response from Defendant. Exhibit 4. Id.
12

13 2. HISTORY

14 On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff made her First Request for Production of Documents.
15
Exhibit 2. Due to a complaint by Defendant, Plaintiff resubmitted her First Request for
16
Production of Documents on June 19, 2019 via email. Exhibit 3.
17
By July 19, 2019, no documents and no response had been received.
18

19 On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel by phone, asking for

20 a response and also asking that documents requested by produced. Dimitre Sworn Declaration.
21 During that phone call, Defendant counsel stated that he had “a few” of the requests that
22
he had objections to. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Defendant counsel provide a list of
23
those few requests that he objected to within a couple of days. Id. Defendant counsel agreed to
24

25
do so. Id.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 3
1 Defendant did not provide either a response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of

2 Documents, or any documents in response to the 1st RFP within 30 days of the request for
3
production. Dimitre Sworn Declaration.
4
On July 24, 2019, instead of receiving the agreed upon short list of objections, Plaintiff
5
received a Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents that included
6

7 multiple objections to each and every request. Exhibit 1.

8 During early to mid August Plaintiff’s counsel was out of the country.
9
On or about August 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel had another phone call with Defendant
10
counsel reminding him that where he had promised to provided a short list of objections to
11
requests, that he had instead provided a proforma objection response. Dimitre Sworn
12

13 Declaration. Plaintiff asked him when he would provide documents and Defendant would not

14 give Plaintiff an answer, or a date that documents would be produced. Id.
15
On September 6, 2019, in a last ditch effort to reach an agreement with Defendant
16
counsel regarding production of documents, Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant counsel and
17
asked if he was prepared to provide the documents that were requested. Id. Instead of a
18

19 response, Defendant’s counsel insisted his objections were legitimate. Id. No agreement was

20 reached. Id.
21 Plaintiff also sent numerous emails to Defendant over three months in multiple attempts
22
to elicit a response from Defendant. Exhibit 4. Id.
23
The documents requested by Plaintiff were the customary documents that Plaintiff
24

25
generally requests in employment cases, and Plaintiff’s counsel has never had multiple

26 objections to each and every request. Dimitre Sworn Declaration.
27

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 4
1 Defendant is the State of California; yet, Defendant states on multiple occasions that it

2 does not have the resourses to provide electronic copies of documents. This is disingenuous.
3
All of the documents requested were requested because they are reasonable calculated to
4
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5

7 3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

8 When a party makes an inspection demand under Section 2031.010 of the Code of Civil
9
Procedure and the party to whom the demand is directed fails to respond, the demanding party
10
may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030
11
of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300).
12

13 When the party to whom an inspection demand has been directed fails to serve a timely

14 response to it, that party waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or
15
on the protection for work product under Section 2018.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure
16
( Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)).
17
The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil
18

19 Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel

20 a response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with
21 substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust
22
(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2031.300(c)).
23
Court May Impose Sanctions Despite Lack of Opposition to Motion to Compel
24

25
Discovery. The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files

26 a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition
27

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 5
1 to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after

2 the motion was filed (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1030(a)).
3
A. DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS SHOULD NOT
4 BE ALLOWED

5
Defendant’s attempted ruse is to have blanket objections to nearly every request, and to
6

7 produce no documents, even when its objections are minor.

8 Plaintiff made 88 requests for information – and Defendant declined to produce a single
9
page of documents to Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s three attempts to discuss the matter with
10
Defendant by phone.
11
Defendants’ responses are boiler plate and do not even make sense on many occasions.
12

13 The Court should not allow Defendant to so blatantly refuse to produce documents to

14 Plaintiff. Defendant has intentionally and egregiously withheld documents from Plaintiff for
15
over four months. Plaintiff needs these documents in order to plan depositions down the road.
16
Defendant’s refusal to provide documents has required Plaintiff’s attorney to spend dozens of
17
additional hours in order to obtain these documents.
18

19 Defendant’s objections were very broad, and generally included those listed below:

20 1. DALE/LARSON OBJECTIONS
21 Defendant objects numerous times that documents cannot be produced from Daley or
22
Larson because they are not the employer. Daley and Larson may have documents in their
23
supervisory or departmental file and as long as Defendant produces those documents, Plaintiff
24

25
has no objection. However on numerous occasions, Defendant made this objection and still did

26 not produce any documents.
27

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 6
1 2. NO PRIVILIEGE LOG PRODUCED

2 No privilege log has been produced. Though Defendant produced no documents and
3
took a privilege on dozens of the documents, no privilege log was provided, in violation of
4
Section 2031.240(b):
5
2031.240. Statement of compliance or inability to comply when part of demand objectionable
6
(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying,
7 testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of
compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of
8 that item or category.
(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
9 sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:
10
(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored
information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is
11 being made.
(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an
12 objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.
13
If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product
under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly
14 asserted.

15
In Catelina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, the court
16
instructed that while an adequate privilege log will vary from case to base based on the privileges
17

18
asserted and the underlying circumstances, “a privilege log typically should provide the identity

19 and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged

20 document, the document’s date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject
21
matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or
22
protection asserted.” Catelina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116,
23
1130.
24

25 3. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS OBJECTIONS
26
Vague and ambiguous: objections that the requested category of documents is "vague"
27
and "ambiguous” can be without merit. A vagueness question "presents a question merely of
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 7
1 whether under the circumstances and situation generally, considered in the light of reason and

2 common sense, [a party] ought to recognize and be able to distinguish the particular thing that is
3
required." Pacific Auto. Ins. Co. v Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2nd 61, 66.
4

5 4. BURDENSOME AND OPPRESSIVE OBJECTIONS
6
As further noted in Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG, 2007), § 8:1476, in
7
connection with document demands, responding counsel should:
8
Avoid raising the "burdensome and oppressive" objection unless the facts are truly
9
unusual (e.g., very fragile property which could be damaged by any movement,
10 touching, etc.).

11 The California Supreme Court has held that before a trial court may restrict a discovery
12
method for being unduly burdensome there must be evidence in the record to sustain that
13
conclusion. Indeed, there must be evidence specifically quantifying the burden imposed on the
14
responding party. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at 417-419.
15

16 (interrogatories); and Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 428 (requests for

17 admission). A moving party must clearly identify any undue burden. Additionally, the
18
objections, if frivolous, may warrant sanctions.
19

20 5. OVERBROAD OBJECTIONS
21
“Overbroad” is not a valid objection to an inspection demand unless either undue burden
22
or irrelevance to the subject matter is demonstrated. California Judges Benchbook: Civil
23
Proceedings--Discovery (Cal CJER 1994, §15.25 p. 243, citing Perkins v. Superior Court (1981)
24

25 118 Cal.App.3d 761,764-765, and Durst v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 8
1 6. DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH AN OBJECTION IS BEING MADE MUST BE
IDENTIFIED WITH PARTICULARITY
2
Code of Civ. Pro. Section 2031.240(b) (l) provides that a responding party: Identify with
3

4 particularity any document ... to which an objection is being made:

5
2031.240.
6
(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying,
7 testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of
compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of
8 that item or category.
(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
9
sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:
10 (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored
information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is
11 being made.
(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an
12
objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.
13 If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product
under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly
14 asserted.
(c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information
15
sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual
16 information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a
privilege log.
17 (2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is
used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a
18
substantive change in case law.
19

20 7. CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRIVACY OBJECTIONS
21
Defendant makes numerous objections based on the U.S. and State constitutions and
22
privacy, but never defines exactly what part of either constitution or privacy statutes apply. The
23
objections are very vague and make it impossible for Plaintiff to ascertain what Defendant’s
24

25 objection refers to.

26 The above were objections to Defendants’ original response to Plaintiff’s First Request
27 for Production of Documents.
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 9
1 Below are Plaintiff’s most recent objections, after meet and confer was held. Meet and

2 confer consisted of over three hours of phone calls over two days, plus at least half a dozen email
3
exchanges.
4

5
8. DEFENDANTS STILL HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY OF THE
6
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
7
Plaintiff and Defendant spent over three hours on the phone over two days and exchanged a
8
half dozen emails in order to try and resolve the outstanding issues. Many were resolved, and the
9

10 Plaintiff dropped some of the requests and narrowed others. Despite, this there are still key

11 documents requested that the Defendant has either 1) refused to produced, or 2) is still thinking
12 about whether he will produce them.
13
As a reminder, the First Request for Production of Documents was dated June 19, 2019,
14
NO DOCUMENTS have been produced as of the date of this filing, nearly five months later.
15
The Court should order Defendant to produce all documents within two weeks of the
16

17 hearing on this matter.

19 9. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE WAS LATE, SO ALL OBJECTIONS MUST BE
WAIVED
20

21 Though Plaintiff’s request for Production of Documents was emailed to Defendant on June

22 19, 2019, no response was received until July 27, 2019 (the response was dated July 24, 2019. In
23
either case, the response was late. Per CCP 2031.300, objections are waived if the Response is not
24
received in a timely manner.
25

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 10
1 10. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE HAD BLANKET OBJECTIONS AS DELAY
TACTIC
2
The Court can see by the length of this Motion that Defendants’ responses and objections to
3

4 Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents were template objections that generally

5 included the kitchen sink.
6 All of the requests had blanket objections.
7
However, once the parties met and conferred, the documents for 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
8
13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 40, 49, 53, 54, 62, 66, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79 were produced as
9
requested, with no narrowing of the scope of the request or other changes. Therefore, it is clear that
10

11 the Defendant used its blanket and kitchen sink objections simply to delay producing documents in

12 a timely manner. To date, NO DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED – nearly five months
13 after the First Request for Production was made.
14
The Court should not approve of Defendants’ games and delay tactics, and must compel
15
Defendant to produce all of the documents requested within two weeks of the hearing on this
16
matter.
17

19 11. MOTION TO COMPEL
20 CCP 2017.010 states the following;
21
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may
22 obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if
23 the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the
24
party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of
25 the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as
of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document,
26 electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”
27

28
The following requests have been refused by Defendants and will not be produced:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 11
1

2 #15 – Though Plaintiff narrowed the scope of this request and transmitted it to Defendant,
3
Defendant has not responded as to whether or not he will produce it. Defendant has had five
4
months to produce these documents, and the Court should compel that they be produced, with
5
objections waived.
6

7
#18 – Plaintiff requested the following:

8 “All documents related to defendants’ efforts to prevent discrimination, harassment and
retaliation in the workplace, including those made by the defendants to comply with state
9 and federal laws or regulations relating to the maintenance of a discrimination, harassment
and retaliation free environment.”
10

11 Defendant has refused to produce these documents.

12 These documents are documents that are produceable under CCP 2017.010, as they will tell
13 Plaintiff if Defendant has attempted to comply with the law and train its employee’s properly. A
14
lack of training could make Defendant even more culpable in this case. Plaintiff requests that the
15
Court order that these documents be produced.
16

17
#23 – Plaintiff requested the following:
18
“Any and all documents relating to Defendants’ disability compliance, training and
19 standards.”
20 Plaintiff attempted to limit this to DFEH, EEOC documents regarding reasonable
21
accommodations and interactive process at CSU Chico. Per CCP 2017.010 these documents are
22
admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible documents.
23

24
#33 – Plaintiff requested:
25
“All personal and University emails, texts, documentation, recordings or documentation of
26 phone calls and other communication of Ms. Daley, Ms. Larson, Mr. Saake, Ms. Neuhart,
Mr. Pushnik, Ms. Hutchinson, Mr. Grassian, Ms. Jennifer Mays, Ms. Pamela Hollis, Mr.
27 Unruh, Ms. Eileen Chavez related to Ms. Randolph.”
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 12
1 Even though Defendant counsel State of California Attorney General’s office claims to

2 represent both the State of California (California State University) and the individual defendants, it
3
has refused to produce personal records of both Ms. Daley and Ms. Larson – its represented
4
employees. Since Defendant represents these two individuals, it must produce personal cell phone
5
and other records requested. This request is admissible or is reasonably calculated to lead to
6

7
admissible evidence.

8
#37 – Plaintiff requested:
9
“Copies of all documentation, memos, emails, texts and any and all other documentation
10
regarding Mr. Saake, Ms. Larson, and Ms. Daley’s communication related to the proposed
11 discipline of Ms. Randolph.”

12 Though Defendant has agreed to produce documents in files, this request is broader than
13
that. This request asks for emails, texts, memos and other documentation. It is not limited to files.
14
This information is admissible or is reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
15

16 #43 – Plaintiff requested:
17
“All documents related to allegations of discrimination, harassment or retaliation by any of
18 the defendants, made by employees, customers, vendors, or others.”

19 Defendant flatly refused to produce these documents. Clearly, these documents would be
20 admissible or would lead to admissible evidence. Again, this is an attempt to look at CSU Chico’s

21 compliance with state and federal anti discrimination laws.

22
#55 - Plaintiff requested:
23
“ If Plaintiff’s separation from employment resulted in loss or forfeit of benefits, provide
24 documents indicating any information as to benefits Plaintiff earned during the course of her
employment which were forfeited upon separation.”
25

26
Though Plaintiff clarified this request as a result of meet and confer – asking only for

27 retirement benefits and health insurance benefits, no response has been received from Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 13
1 #58 – Plaintiff requested the following:

2 “A copy of all contracts for Tim LaSalle, and a copy of Mr. LaSalle’s invoices/tine cards and
payments made to Mr. LaSalle from January 2018 to present.”
3

4 Plaintiff made this request because one of her allegations is that her supervisor was ignoring

5 local rules and state law by backdating Mr. LaSalle’s contract, and by not putting his bid, which was
6 over $100,000 out to bid. Randolph claims that she was retaliated against due to her complaint to
7
her supervisor regarding LaSalle. This information is clearly admissible or could lead to admissible
8
evidence.
9

10
#63 – Plaintiff requested the following:
11
“Copy of information request, and any related information sent to Mr. Saake by Ms.
12 Randolph regarding the reorganizations of the Institute for Sustainability, and other
departments for which Ms. Randolph was employed from January 1, 2018 to present.”
13

14
Defendant has not responded to this request and whether or not he will produce responsive

15 documents.

16
#64 – Plaintiff requested:
17

18 “Documentation regarding the number of donors to the “This Way to Sustainability
Conference” from 2006-2019.”
19
Plaintiff clarified her request by asking for the total number of donors for each of these
20

21
years. Defendant has not produced documents and has not stated if he will produce documents.

22
# 67 – Plaintiff requested:
23
“Written documentation of donations, donation acknowledgment forms and any other
24
related documents, to the Regenerative Agriculture Initiative, and documentation of actual
25 donations made to the RAI from.”

26 Plaintiff clarified this request by asking that donations be matched up with donation forms.
27 One of Plaintiff’s allegations is that she was retaliated against for raising the issue of her supervisor

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 14
1 not filling out donation forms, as required, and that she was retaliated against for it. This clearly is

2
admissible evidence or will lead to admissible evidence.

3
# 70 – Plaintiff requested:
4
“CSU Chico and CSU system wide policies regarding: requirement to obtain an alcohol
5 permit for events, approvals to hold events on and off campus, contracts, consultants, IT
Security (including but not limited to password protection), In Kind Gift Acceptance Policy,
6 University Foundation Gift Acceptance Policy, CSU Responsible Use Policy, CSU Chico
7
Alcohol Service at Special Events Policy (EM 18-009), and requests for proposals.”

8 Plaintiff requested this information as part of her whistleblower complaint, to show that the

9 complaints that she made about violations of policy were valid. Clearly this is admissible evidence
10
or would lead to admissible evidence.
11

12 #80 – Plaintiff requested:
13 “Copies of documentation and correspondence regarding the re-launch of the “This Way to
14
Sustainability Conference” website, and the decision to leave Ms. Randolph’s name off of
the re-launched website.:
15
Plaintiff clarified that she just wants documentation and correspondence from the time
16
period after the website was re-launched – or December 4 2019. Defendant has not stated whether
17

18 he will produce or not. Clearly this evidence is admissible or would lead to admissible evidence.

19
#81 – Plaintiff requested:
20

21
“A copy Randolph’s email account,(trandolph@csuchico.edu) including all email
subfolders.”
22
Plaintiff clarified this request to Defendant, but documents have not been produced.
23
#82 – Plaintiff requested:
24

25 “A copy of the entire ISD website folders, both on Plaintiff’s CSU Chico computer hard
drive and server folders from January 2017 to present.”
26
Though Plaintiff clarified this request, no response has been received from Defendant. This
27
information has Plaintiff’s working files regarding the conference, her notes and archived emails
28

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 15
1
regarding her job and the issues that she was having with her supervisor, so this information would
2
be admissible or would lead to admissible information.
3

4 For the following, Defendants have stated whether they will produce the documents
5 requested:
6 83 – 87 –
7

8
#83 - A copy of all documents in Plaintiff’s box folder that Plaintiff had access to, for RAI and ISD

9 and all subfolders from January 2017 to present.

10 #84 - All documents in Ms. Randolph’s personal box folder from January 1, 2017 to present.
11
#85 - All ISD box folders from January 1, 2017 present.
12
#86 - A copy of Ms. Randolph’s “My Documents” folder on her computer from January 1, 2017
13
to present.
14

15
#87 - A copy of all emails and attachments from the Sustainability email account from January 1,

16 2017 to present.

17 #88 - Copies of all pages from the new sustainability website from date of creation to present.
18

19
For all six of these requests, the last response from Defendants is that they are looking into
20
it. Again, they have had five months to produce these documents. They are all admissible or
21

22
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as these are the areas where Ms. Randolph

23 stored her emails, files, notes and other information regarding her employment at CSU Chico and

24 her dispute that she was experiencing.
25
The Court should order Defendant to produce documents responsive to the above requests.
26

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 16
1

2 12. ATTORNEY’S FEES
3
CCP section 2023.030 states "(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering
4
that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct,
5
or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of
6

7 that conduct.

8 Per statute, Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees for the undue burden of responding to
9 Defendant’s blanket and kitchen sink variety responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
10
Documents. Plaintiff’s counsel has spent 23 hours at $300 per hour responding, emailing, and
11
talking to Defendant counsel on the phone. Most of this time would have been unnecessary if
12
Defendant would have simply produced the documents requested by Plaintiff. Total cost to
13

14 Plaintiff: $6,900.00.

15 Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
16

17
14. CONCLUSION
18
For all of the reasons stated above, the Court should GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to
19

20
Compel Production of Documents and give Defendant 30 days to produce all of the documents

21 requested. Plaintiff remains ready to meet and confer regarding e-discovery.

22 Because Defendant did not produce a response or documents in a timely manner, the
23
Court should require that Defendant produce all of the documents with no objections.
24

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 17
1

2 Respectfully submitted,
3
Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC
4
/s/ Thomas Dimitre
5 BY: __________________ Dated: November 5, 2019
Thomas Dimitre
6
Attorney for
7 Teresa Randolph

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 18

Case Info

Judge

Benson, Stephen E Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 05, 2019

Case Filing Date

April 19, 2019

County

Parties

Daley, Cynthia Defendant
Deschler, Jerry James Attorney for the Defendant
Dimitre, Thomas Nicholas Attorney for the Plaintiff
Larson, Debra Defendant
Randolph, Teresa Plaintiff
State of California Defendant
Trustees of the California State University Defendant
Matthew Jones Attorney
Brian Panish Attorney
Spencer Lucas Attorney
Matthew Freeman Attorney
James Thompson Attorney
William Goines Attorneys for Defendants
Cindy Hamilton Attorneys for Defendants
Shauna Imanaka Attorneys for Defendants
Caroline Cohen Attorney
Andrew Weaver Attorney
Philippe Gaudard Attorney
Edwin Aiwazian Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Arby Aiwazian Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Roman Shkodnik Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Yeremian Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Barbara Blackburn Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Adams Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Douglas Ropel Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Party Discovery: Randolph, Teresa vs Trustees of the California State University et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties