Preview
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California F
JERRY J. DESCHLER County of Butte
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 215691 11/07/2019 L
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255 E
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 jerk D
Telephone: (916) 210-7871 By Deputy
Fax: (916) 324-5567 Electronically FILED
E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
Board of Trustees of the California State University,
which is the State of California acting in its higher
education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees
of the California State University, State of
10 California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF BUTTE
13 CIVIL DIVISION
14
15
TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226
16
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
17 PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO
COMPEL
18
Date: November 13, 2019 (cont. from
19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA Oct. 2, 2019)
STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, Dept: 10
AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Judge: The Honorable Robert A.
21 AN INDIVIDUAL, Glusman
Trial Date: none
22 Defendant. Action Filed: April 24, 2019
23
24 Plaintiff Teresa Randolph (“Randolph”) served and filed a second “Motion To Compel,”
25 second. Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and, for the first time, a defective Separate
26 Statement in support of her motion to compel only six court days before the scheduled November
27 13, 2019 hearing date. Randolph did not seek leave of court to file a second Motion To Compel
28 and Memorandum of Points and Authorities lacking the proper statutory notice. Moreover,
ly
Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (19CV01226)
because these new papers were filed only six court days before the hearing, Defendants do not
have adequate time to respond in opposition.
The Court should deny Randolph’s motion in its entirety. First, Randolph waived the right
to compel further responses or production of documents, as set forth in Defendants’ Opposition to
this motion. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408.) Second, Randolph’s
motion failed to include the required separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345, subd.
(a).) Randolph’s recently-filed separate statement fails to cure the defects in her motion. First, a
separate statement must be “full and complete” in itself. (Id., subd. (c).) Second, a separate
statement must include, among other things, a “statement of the factual and legal reasons for
10 compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” (Id., subd.
11 (c)(3).) Randolph’s separate statement is deficient in both respects in that it does not include any
12 factual and legal analysis or reasons for compelling further responses.
13 If the Court is unwilling to deny the motion in its entirety and elects to consider Randolph’s
14 separate statement and belated Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendants respectfully
15 request that the Court continue the hearing to give Defendants sufficient time to respond to
16 Randolph’s Separate Statement and the improperly newly-added arguments in her Memorandum
ly of Points and Authorities. Randolph fails to apprise the Court of the fact that, although her
18 counsel engaged in two lengthy meet and confer telephone calls, Randolph still did not comply
19 with her meet and confer obligations. Counsel agreed during those telephone calls to confer with
20 their clients regarding issues that were still unresolved. Defendants complied with that
21 obligation. Randolph did not, and failed to respond to several of Defendants’ attempts to
22 communicate. (Deschler Decl., 11 2-3.)
23 Randolph also fails to address that many of her requests are still overbroad or otherwise
24 improper, and/or that she has failed to address her mandatory obligations for requesting electronic
25 discovery. For example, Request No. 81 seeks Randolph’s entire email file for the entire course
26 of her 22-year employment. Defendants explained during the meet and confer process that, even
27 limiting the file to the most recent few years yields over 37,000 records, most of which do not
28 appear related to the lawsuit, and which would take literally hundreds of hours to review if not
2
Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (19CV01226)
further limited. (Deschler Decl., 12, Exh. A.) Randolph’s overbroad request and refusal to limit
the request fails to meet the mandatory proportionality requirement of the Discovery Act. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2017.020.)
Finally, Randolph also misstates and mischaracterizes the parties’ documented meet and
confer conversations and omits pertinent details, such as the fact that Defendants voluntarily
agreed to produce thousands of pages of documents and are in the process of preparing the
document production. (Deschler Decl., {1 2-3.)
Because Randolph failed to cure the fatal defects to her motion to compel, Defendants
request that the motion be denied in its entirety. Alternatively, Defendants request that the Court
10 grant a continuance because Defendants are entitled to an opportunity to address each item in
i Randolph’s newly-filed Separate Statement before the Court rules on any individual item of
12 discovery in dispute.
13 Dated: November 7, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,
14 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
15 PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
16
SSS
17
18
JERRY J. DESCHLER
19 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
20 Board of Trustees of the California State
University, which is the State of California
21 acting in its higher education capacity
(erroneously sued as “Trustees of the
22 California State University, State of
California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra
Larson
24 SA2019102196
14260014.docx
26
27
28
Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (19CV01226)
DECLARATION OF JERRY DESCHLER
I, Jerry Deschler, declare:
1 I am an attorney licensed to practice in all of the courts of the State of California, and
am a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General, attorneys for Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is
the State of California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of
the California State University, State of California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson
(collectively “Defendants”). The following statements are based upon my personal knowledge,
and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so.
10 2. After the Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer and for Randolph to
11 submit a declaration demonstrating that Randolph complied with her meet and confer obligations,
12 I had two conversations with Randolph’s counsel regarding the discovery requests. The calls
13 lasted approximately three hours. We resolved several issues and J informed him several times
14 that Defendants agreed to voluntarily comply with most of the requests and produce thousands of
15 pages of responsive documents, which were being reviewed for production. With regard to
16 several of the requests, I informed him that the requests were vague and that I did not understand
17 what documents were being sought. I also attempted to obtain further clarification in emails to
18 Randolph’s counsel. I also stated the legal and factual reasons why Defendants objected to some
19 requests and believes they are improper. I also proposed several ways of searching and
20 narrowing electronic records in compliance with the rules for electronic discovery. In those
21 discussions, I reminded Randolph’s counsel that the database contained almost 500,000 separate
22 records and over one million pages. Randolph’s counsel did not cooperate with those efforts. For
example, Request No. 81 seeks Randolph’s entire email file, without limitation, over the entire
course of her 22-year employment. I explained during the meet and confer process that, even
25 limiting the database to the most recent few years, Randolph’s email file contains over 37,000
26 records, the vast majority of which do not appear to be related in any way to the lawsuit
27 allegations. I estimate that simply reviewing those records for relevance, potential privilege, or
28 other issues would take hundreds of hours or more. Thus, that request in no way meets the
1
Declaration of Jerry Deschler (19CV01226)
mandatory proportionality requirement of the Discovery Act. I attempted to discuss appropriate
search terms to limit the database and production, but Randolph’s counsel refused and insisted
that Randolph is entitled to “everything” in her former work email account, without limitation. I
documented this and the status of other items of discovery in several of my emails to Randolph’s
counsel. A true and correct copy of my most recent correspondence, dated October 30, 2019, is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3 Randolph’s counsel never responded to my October 30, 2019 email. Randolph
similarly misstates and mischaracterizes the parties’ documented meet and confer conversations
and omits pertinent details, such as the fact that Defendants voluntarily agreed to produce
10 thousands of pages of documents and are in the process of preparing the document production.
11 Although Randolph’s counsel engaged in two lengthy meet and confer telephone calls, Randolph
12 still did not comply with her meet and confer obligations. Counsel agreed during those telephone
13 calls to confer with their clients regarding issues that were still unresolved. After continuing to
14 review documents and communicate with Defendants, I complied with that obligation and
1S attempted to further communicate via email. Randolph did not, and failed to respond to several
16 of my attempts to communicate.
17 Executed this“) day of November, 2019, in Sacramento, California.
a
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of Jerry Deschler (19CV01226)
EXHIBIT A
Jerry Deschler
From: Jerry Deschler
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:05 PM
To: ‘Tom Dimitre’
Subject: Randolph discovery status
Below is an update on the status of discovery items that are either still in dispute or have questions.
Generally, regarding production of all paper documents, | believe those documents should all be available to produce on
the timeline we last discussed. There was an error with a large document comprising several hundred pages that had to
be reloaded into the database and will now need to be reviewed. If that ends up causing a slight delay in the
production, | will let you know.
| do not yet have a timeframe for production of the electronic records. As you are aware, there are almost 500,000
documents in our database, and | have attempted to come to an agreement regarding the scope of documents to be
searched, reviewed, and produced. Thus far, we have only discussed limiting based on certain names. That is unlikely to
substantially reduce the database. In the absence of any more specific agreement with you on search terms, we will be
forced to create our own searches based on terms we believe are likely to produce relevant documents.
-Requests 5, 6, 7, 33 (and others that entail electronic records): As discussed above, we are producing all paper
documents. Electronic documents must be limited as required by rules of E-discovery in the Rules of Court and Code of
Civil Procedure, which | have already discussed with you. As you noted, we began compiling search terms (“Randolph,”
“Teresa Randolph,” “Teri Randolph,” “This Way To Sustainability”), which was helpful. | have requested that our
litigation support unit create a sub-database using those search terms, which should be completed next week. In the
absence of any further communications from you on creating a meaningful search, we will be forced to create additional
searches for relevant documents on our own. Please advise how you would like to proceed.
-Requests 15, 18: You asked for proof of training as well as all training that may have been offered. We are looking into
what might exist with regard to Randolph, Daley, Larson, Saake, Neuhart, Unruh, and Pushnik, and will produce
whatever exists.
-Request 23: No responsive documents exist.
-Request 33 regarding documents other than emails: To the extent this request is seeking documents belonging to
individuals rather than CSU, CSU has no documents in its possession, custody, or control.
-Request 43: CSU does not agree to conduct a system-wide search and production for every potential complaint of
discrimination, etc. A party is required to make a showing of direct relevance before such “me too” evidence is
permissible. No such showing has been made.
-Request 55: | do not understand what documents regarding “loss of retirement benefits, loss of health insurance
benefits” you are looking for.
-Request 59: As stated, we are looking into this.
-Requests 64, 66: We are looking into this.
-Requests 68: We are looking into whether this exists.
-Request 70: CSU does not agree to produce. You have made no showing as to why the policies for alcohol permits
should be produced.
-Request 81: As previously discussed, CSU will not agree to produce Randolph’s entire email box without limits. If you
will not agree to search terms that limit the document database to a reasonable size, we will be forced to do so on our
own. Again, you fail to address the mandatory proportionality requirement between the issues in the case and the time
and expense of reviewing and producing the documents. The present database for Randolph’s emails is over 37,000
records. Assuming each record takes 2-3 minutes to review (which is conservative for some documents), 160-240
documents could be reviewed in a day, assuming working on nothing but document review in this case for the full
day. You are asking us to spend 150 to 230 work days simply to review one segment of documents for production. That
request in no way meets the proportionality requirement in an employment law case, especially one such as this where
the claims are frivolous on their face and the discipline and proposed termination of the employee are so conclusively
documented. | spent some time “spot checking” various emails in the database, and the overwhelming majority were
not relevant to any issue in this case. The overbreadth of this request is improper.
Requests 82-88: We are looking into this.
Let me know if | missed anything.
Jerry Deschler Jr.
Deputy Attorney General IV
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 210-7871
Fax: (916) 324-5567
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review,
use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and U.S. Mail
Case Name: Teresa Randolph y. Trustees of the California State University, et al.
Case No.: 19CV01226
I declare:
Iam employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On November 7, 2019, I served the attached DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL by transmitting a true copy via
electronic mail. In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the
internal mail system of the Office of the Attorney General, addressed as follows:
Thomas Dimitre
PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
E-mail Address: dimitre@mind.net
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 7, 2019, at Sacramento,
California.
Jenny Thirakul
Declarant Signature
82019102196
14260366.docx
Preview
XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California F JERRY J. DESCHLER County of Butte Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 215691 11/07/2019 L 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 E Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 jerk D Telephone: (916) 210-7871 By Deputy Fax: (916) 324-5567 Electronically FILED E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the California State University, State of 10 California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF BUTTE 13 CIVIL DIVISION 14 15 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 17 PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL 18 Date: November 13, 2019 (cont. from 19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA Oct. 2, 2019) STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, Dept: 10 AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Judge: The Honorable Robert A. 21 AN INDIVIDUAL, Glusman Trial Date: none 22 Defendant. Action Filed: April 24, 2019 23 24 Plaintiff Teresa Randolph (“Randolph”) served and filed a second “Motion To Compel,” 25 second. Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and, for the first time, a defective Separate 26 Statement in support of her motion to compel only six court days before the scheduled November 27 13, 2019 hearing date. Randolph did not seek leave of court to file a second Motion To Compel 28 and Memorandum of Points and Authorities lacking the proper statutory notice. Moreover, ly Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (19CV01226) because these new papers were filed only six court days before the hearing, Defendants do not have adequate time to respond in opposition. The Court should deny Randolph’s motion in its entirety. First, Randolph waived the right to compel further responses or production of documents, as set forth in Defendants’ Opposition to this motion. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408.) Second, Randolph’s motion failed to include the required separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Randolph’s recently-filed separate statement fails to cure the defects in her motion. First, a separate statement must be “full and complete” in itself. (Id., subd. (c).) Second, a separate statement must include, among other things, a “statement of the factual and legal reasons for 10 compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” (Id., subd. 11 (c)(3).) Randolph’s separate statement is deficient in both respects in that it does not include any 12 factual and legal analysis or reasons for compelling further responses. 13 If the Court is unwilling to deny the motion in its entirety and elects to consider Randolph’s 14 separate statement and belated Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendants respectfully 15 request that the Court continue the hearing to give Defendants sufficient time to respond to 16 Randolph’s Separate Statement and the improperly newly-added arguments in her Memorandum ly of Points and Authorities. Randolph fails to apprise the Court of the fact that, although her 18 counsel engaged in two lengthy meet and confer telephone calls, Randolph still did not comply 19 with her meet and confer obligations. Counsel agreed during those telephone calls to confer with 20 their clients regarding issues that were still unresolved. Defendants complied with that 21 obligation. Randolph did not, and failed to respond to several of Defendants’ attempts to 22 communicate. (Deschler Decl., 11 2-3.) 23 Randolph also fails to address that many of her requests are still overbroad or otherwise 24 improper, and/or that she has failed to address her mandatory obligations for requesting electronic 25 discovery. For example, Request No. 81 seeks Randolph’s entire email file for the entire course 26 of her 22-year employment. Defendants explained during the meet and confer process that, even 27 limiting the file to the most recent few years yields over 37,000 records, most of which do not 28 appear related to the lawsuit, and which would take literally hundreds of hours to review if not 2 Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (19CV01226) further limited. (Deschler Decl., 12, Exh. A.) Randolph’s overbroad request and refusal to limit the request fails to meet the mandatory proportionality requirement of the Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020.) Finally, Randolph also misstates and mischaracterizes the parties’ documented meet and confer conversations and omits pertinent details, such as the fact that Defendants voluntarily agreed to produce thousands of pages of documents and are in the process of preparing the document production. (Deschler Decl., {1 2-3.) Because Randolph failed to cure the fatal defects to her motion to compel, Defendants request that the motion be denied in its entirety. Alternatively, Defendants request that the Court 10 grant a continuance because Defendants are entitled to an opportunity to address each item in i Randolph’s newly-filed Separate Statement before the Court rules on any individual item of 12 discovery in dispute. 13 Dated: November 7, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, 14 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 15 PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 16 SSS 17 18 JERRY J. DESCHLER 19 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 20 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California 21 acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the 22 California State University, State of California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson 24 SA2019102196 14260014.docx 26 27 28 Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff's Second Motion To Compel (19CV01226) DECLARATION OF JERRY DESCHLER I, Jerry Deschler, declare: 1 I am an attorney licensed to practice in all of the courts of the State of California, and am a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, attorneys for Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the California State University, State of California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson (collectively “Defendants”). The following statements are based upon my personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so. 10 2. After the Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer and for Randolph to 11 submit a declaration demonstrating that Randolph complied with her meet and confer obligations, 12 I had two conversations with Randolph’s counsel regarding the discovery requests. The calls 13 lasted approximately three hours. We resolved several issues and J informed him several times 14 that Defendants agreed to voluntarily comply with most of the requests and produce thousands of 15 pages of responsive documents, which were being reviewed for production. With regard to 16 several of the requests, I informed him that the requests were vague and that I did not understand 17 what documents were being sought. I also attempted to obtain further clarification in emails to 18 Randolph’s counsel. I also stated the legal and factual reasons why Defendants objected to some 19 requests and believes they are improper. I also proposed several ways of searching and 20 narrowing electronic records in compliance with the rules for electronic discovery. In those 21 discussions, I reminded Randolph’s counsel that the database contained almost 500,000 separate 22 records and over one million pages. Randolph’s counsel did not cooperate with those efforts. For example, Request No. 81 seeks Randolph’s entire email file, without limitation, over the entire course of her 22-year employment. I explained during the meet and confer process that, even 25 limiting the database to the most recent few years, Randolph’s email file contains over 37,000 26 records, the vast majority of which do not appear to be related in any way to the lawsuit 27 allegations. I estimate that simply reviewing those records for relevance, potential privilege, or 28 other issues would take hundreds of hours or more. Thus, that request in no way meets the 1 Declaration of Jerry Deschler (19CV01226) mandatory proportionality requirement of the Discovery Act. I attempted to discuss appropriate search terms to limit the database and production, but Randolph’s counsel refused and insisted that Randolph is entitled to “everything” in her former work email account, without limitation. I documented this and the status of other items of discovery in several of my emails to Randolph’s counsel. A true and correct copy of my most recent correspondence, dated October 30, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 Randolph’s counsel never responded to my October 30, 2019 email. Randolph similarly misstates and mischaracterizes the parties’ documented meet and confer conversations and omits pertinent details, such as the fact that Defendants voluntarily agreed to produce 10 thousands of pages of documents and are in the process of preparing the document production. 11 Although Randolph’s counsel engaged in two lengthy meet and confer telephone calls, Randolph 12 still did not comply with her meet and confer obligations. Counsel agreed during those telephone 13 calls to confer with their clients regarding issues that were still unresolved. After continuing to 14 review documents and communicate with Defendants, I complied with that obligation and 1S attempted to further communicate via email. Randolph did not, and failed to respond to several 16 of my attempts to communicate. 17 Executed this“) day of November, 2019, in Sacramento, California. a 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration of Jerry Deschler (19CV01226) EXHIBIT A Jerry Deschler From: Jerry Deschler Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:05 PM To: ‘Tom Dimitre’ Subject: Randolph discovery status Below is an update on the status of discovery items that are either still in dispute or have questions. Generally, regarding production of all paper documents, | believe those documents should all be available to produce on the timeline we last discussed. There was an error with a large document comprising several hundred pages that had to be reloaded into the database and will now need to be reviewed. If that ends up causing a slight delay in the production, | will let you know. | do not yet have a timeframe for production of the electronic records. As you are aware, there are almost 500,000 documents in our database, and | have attempted to come to an agreement regarding the scope of documents to be searched, reviewed, and produced. Thus far, we have only discussed limiting based on certain names. That is unlikely to substantially reduce the database. In the absence of any more specific agreement with you on search terms, we will be forced to create our own searches based on terms we believe are likely to produce relevant documents. -Requests 5, 6, 7, 33 (and others that entail electronic records): As discussed above, we are producing all paper documents. Electronic documents must be limited as required by rules of E-discovery in the Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure, which | have already discussed with you. As you noted, we began compiling search terms (“Randolph,” “Teresa Randolph,” “Teri Randolph,” “This Way To Sustainability”), which was helpful. | have requested that our litigation support unit create a sub-database using those search terms, which should be completed next week. In the absence of any further communications from you on creating a meaningful search, we will be forced to create additional searches for relevant documents on our own. Please advise how you would like to proceed. -Requests 15, 18: You asked for proof of training as well as all training that may have been offered. We are looking into what might exist with regard to Randolph, Daley, Larson, Saake, Neuhart, Unruh, and Pushnik, and will produce whatever exists. -Request 23: No responsive documents exist. -Request 33 regarding documents other than emails: To the extent this request is seeking documents belonging to individuals rather than CSU, CSU has no documents in its possession, custody, or control. -Request 43: CSU does not agree to conduct a system-wide search and production for every potential complaint of discrimination, etc. A party is required to make a showing of direct relevance before such “me too” evidence is permissible. No such showing has been made. -Request 55: | do not understand what documents regarding “loss of retirement benefits, loss of health insurance benefits” you are looking for. -Request 59: As stated, we are looking into this. -Requests 64, 66: We are looking into this. -Requests 68: We are looking into whether this exists. -Request 70: CSU does not agree to produce. You have made no showing as to why the policies for alcohol permits should be produced. -Request 81: As previously discussed, CSU will not agree to produce Randolph’s entire email box without limits. If you will not agree to search terms that limit the document database to a reasonable size, we will be forced to do so on our own. Again, you fail to address the mandatory proportionality requirement between the issues in the case and the time and expense of reviewing and producing the documents. The present database for Randolph’s emails is over 37,000 records. Assuming each record takes 2-3 minutes to review (which is conservative for some documents), 160-240 documents could be reviewed in a day, assuming working on nothing but document review in this case for the full day. You are asking us to spend 150 to 230 work days simply to review one segment of documents for production. That request in no way meets the proportionality requirement in an employment law case, especially one such as this where the claims are frivolous on their face and the discipline and proposed termination of the employee are so conclusively documented. | spent some time “spot checking” various emails in the database, and the overwhelming majority were not relevant to any issue in this case. The overbreadth of this request is improper. Requests 82-88: We are looking into this. Let me know if | missed anything. Jerry Deschler Jr. Deputy Attorney General IV 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 210-7871 Fax: (916) 324-5567 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL and U.S. Mail Case Name: Teresa Randolph y. Trustees of the California State University, et al. Case No.: 19CV01226 I declare: Iam employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On November 7, 2019, I served the attached DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail. In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the internal mail system of the Office of the Attorney General, addressed as follows: Thomas Dimitre PO Box 801 Ashland, OR 97520 E-mail Address: dimitre@mind.net I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 7, 2019, at Sacramento, California. Jenny Thirakul Declarant Signature 82019102196 14260366.docx