Preview
yw
S
Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220
Kyle Z. Pineo, California Bar No. 317320
BERDING & WEIL LLP FILED
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 SAN MATEO COUNTY
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925-838-2090 ¢ OCT i 2018:
Facsimile: 925-820-5592
fhagen@berdingweil.com
5 kpineo@berdingweil.com =
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALI TAGHAVI
a a
o-oo
Separate Statement SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
1432429
.
| wn IAIN -—),—— -—
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO
13 vs. COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND
14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit THINGS
15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD
3
UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan [Cal. Rules of Court, r le 3.1345}
16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Date: November , 2018
17 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: Law and Motion
18
19 Complaint Filed: - October 4, 2017 ‘
Trial Date: December 17, 2018.3,
20
21
22 I RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
23 The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” or “WRITING” or “WRITINGS” shall
24 include all writings as defined by Section 250 of the California Evidence Code and Section
25 2016.020 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including ELETRONICALLY STORED
26 INFORMATION, whether handwritten, typed, printed, photocopied, photographed, or any other
27 mean of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation and
28 shall include data and metadata stored on servers, computers, mobile phones, personal wireless
-1-
BERDING
USN alae &bidWEUL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
niS500996
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
NN
ta
‘=
o.
devices, including without limitation computer files, programs, and any other information media;
data stored on removable magnetic or optical media, including but not limited to magnetic tape,
floppy disks, and recordable optical disks; data and metadata used for electronic data interchange,
audit trails, emails, text messages, tweets, social media, digitized pictures and video, including
but not limited to data stored in MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group), JPEG (Joint Pictures
Expert Group), and GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) formats; digitized audio, and voice mail.
The term “YOU” and “YOUR” refers to and includes defendant Trustees of The Leland
Stanford Junior University, a California nonprofit corporation, doing business as Stanford
University (“Stanford”), including without limitation the Stanford School of Medicine and the
10 Stanford Prevention Research Center and any affiliated entity, Stanford’s agents, employees,
11 insurance companies, their agents, their employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and
12 anyone else acting on Stanford’s behalf.
13 The term “AMWAY” shall mean and refer to and include Alticor, Inc., Amway
14 Corporation of Ada, Michigan, Nutrilite Products, Inc., and/or the Nutrilite Health Institute or
15 related or affiliated entities.
16 The term “PROJECT” shall mean and refer to the Wellness Living Laboratory Project or
17 “WELL Project” (also sometimes known as the Well for Life Project), which was and/or is
18 funded by AMWAY through an unrestricted gift to Stanford and/or The Nutrilite Health Institute
19 Wellness Fund and was and/or is directed by the Stanford Prevention Research Center (“SPRC”).
20 I. PLAINTIFF’S INSPECTION DEMANDS, SET NO. 1
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PROJECT.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
24 Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request
25 does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. §
26 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and
27 indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
28 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
-2-
BERDING
BIS
Wana eal
& WEIL‘ae
rekon ye
356
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER,
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Blanket, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, without
producing any documents constitute nuisance objections that, without further explanation, could
subject a responding party to sanctions. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225
Cal.App.3d 898, 201.) Any party may request another party to produce documents “which are
relevant to the subject matter of the action, or are reasonably calculated to discover admissible
evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (a).) “The relevance of the subject matter standard
10 must be reasonably applied; in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery
Il procedures, doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting
12 discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)
13 Furthermore, it is improper for a responding party to object that an interrogatory requests
14 confidential information; the responding party should instead seek a protective order to prevent
15 disclosure through a public record. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court
16 (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) If a party withholds documents based on privilege, a privilege
17 log should be provided. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).)
18 Unless a case involves an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal
19 autonomy, e.g., freedom from involuntary sterilization or the free to pursue consensual familiar
20 relationships, the party seeking to preclude discovery of confidential information must show that,
21 on balance, the interests in protecting confidential information predominate over the interests in
22 obtaining discovery in preparation for trial. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7
23 Cal.4th 1, 34.) “Doubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial
24 should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
25 Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 791.) “Trial courts in exercising their discretion
26 should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should
27 impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery ... » (Greyhound Corp. v.
28 Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383.) If the “intrusion is limited and confidential
3-
BERDING
DIN &baWEIL LLP
Sic3496
0 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
Walt Grek, Calenia
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to
know, privacy concerns are assuaged.” (Hill, infra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 38.)
Here, Stanford made improper nuisance objections under Standon. The request is not
vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope or overly broad and indiscriminate. In fact, the
request is limited to PROJECT documents.
Furthermore, Stanford made improper confidentiality objections. Indeed, the parties
stipulated to a protective order process whereby a party claiming confidentiality could designate
documents as “confidential”, thereby preventing disclosure of the documents to the public.
9 Stanford ignored the procedures specified by the stipulation and instead, objected to the
10 document requests on the basis of confidentiality.
11 Moreover, the alleged confidential disclosure here would not involve an_ interest
12 fundamental to personal autonomy, so a court would apply balancing. Privacy concerns are
13 outweighed by the PROJECT documents’ relevance regarding Stanford’s motive in terminating
14 Mr. Taghavi’s employment. Motive is very relevant—indeed, a central issue—in a wrongful
15 termination case. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure because Mr. Taghavi has already
16 stipulated to a protective order process that would protect the financial information from
17 disclosure to the general public. Thus, the privacy concern is miniscule compared to the
18 relevance of the requested documents.
19 The parties stipulated to confidential documents to address situations exactly like this one.
20 Stanford could designate the documents as confidential and they would be governed by the
21 stipulation. Under the Stipulation, Mr. Taghavi would not be able to release to the requested
22 documents to the general public, and a limited number of individuals could view them. Privacy
23 concerns are minimal, so Stanford should provide the highly relevant PROJECT documents.
24 Moreover, Stanford provided no privilege log to assess the validity of its privilege objections.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all work performed by Ali Taghavi at
27 Stanford and/or for the PROJECT.
28 Ml
4.
BERDING
brs & bingWEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER.
WanaNeasa
Get Clfons Sue 9396
60
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request
does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and
indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
10 (See rule statements in “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for
11 Production No. 1.)
12 Here, Stanford made improper nuisance objections under Standon. The request is not
13 vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope or overly broad and indiscriminate. In fact, the
14 request is limited to documents related to work by Ali Taghavi. Furthermore, Stanford made
15 improper confidentiality objections. Stanford ignored the procedures specified by the stipulation
16 and instead, objected to the document requests on the basis of confidentiality.
17 Moreover, the alleged confidential disclosure here would not involve an_ interest
18 fundamental to personal autonomy, so a court would apply balancing. Privacy concerns are
19 outweighed by the requested documents’ relevance regarding Stanford’s motive in terminating
20 Mr. Taghavi’s employment. Motive is very relevant—indeed, a central issue—in a wrongful
21 termination case. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure because Mr. Taghavi has already
22 stipulated to a protective order process that would protect the financial information from
23 disclosure to the general public. Thus, the privacy concern is miniscule compared to the
24 relevance of the requested documents.
25 The parties stipulated to confidential documents to address situations exactly like this one.
26 Stanford could designate the documents as confidential and they would be governed by the
27 stipulation. Under the Stipulation, Mr. Taghavi would not be able to release to the requested
28 documents to the general public, and a limited number of individuals could view them. Privacy
5.
BERDING
2S Nate & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
‘Walt Cec, CallenS2094595
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
concerns are minimal, so Stanford should provide the highly relevant PROJECT documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford and
Alticor regarding the PROJECT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request
does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and
indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
10 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
ll client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
12 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information.
13 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
14 See “Reason Further Response Should. be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 2.
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
16 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, including without limitation all
17 personnel files and/or files regarding the investigation of Mr. Taghavi’s claims of wrongful
18 termination.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
20 Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request
21 does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. §
22 2031.030.) The terms “investigation” and “wrongful termination” call for a legal conclusion and
23 are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic]
24 overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing.
25 Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy
26 rights, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any
27 documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. Subject to, and
28 notwithstanding these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant will produce
-6-
& WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO: COMPEL FURTHER
ISN
‘Walt Calabi
Cec, ClinSte 54595
s00|
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
Plaintiffs personnel file.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
A statement of compliance “shall state that the production ... demanded will be allowed
either in whole or in part, and that all documents ... in the demanded category that are in the
possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be
included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) A statement of the inability to
comply must state: (1) Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable
inquiry in an effort to locate responsive documents within Responding Party’s possession,
custody, or control; (2) the reason Responding Party is unable to comply: i.e., the requested
10 documents never existed, were lost, stolen, or inadvertently destroyed; or are no longer in
11 Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control; and (3) who has possession of the
12 documents. (/d., § 2031.230.)
13 Here, Stanford responded evasively by refusing to state that it will produce all non-
14 privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control, and instead, strictly limiting
15 production to Mr. Taghavi’s personnel file. In addition, Stanford’s remaining objections are
16 improper, as discussed in “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for
17 Production No. 2.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford
20 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation
21 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney,
22 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen,
23 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner,
24 and/or John “Jack” Farguhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith
25 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
27 Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The
28 request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. §
-7-
BERDING
2196 & WEILLLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
‘ales cana
Cec, CainSuse 9195
0
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and
indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are
neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Blanket, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, without
producing any documents constitute nuisance objections that, without further explanation, could
10 subject a responding party to sanctions. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225
11 Cal.App.3d 898, 201.) Any party may request another party to produce documents “which are
12 relevant to the subject matter of the action, or are reasonably calculated to discover admissible
13 evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (a).) “The relevance of the subject matter standard
14 must be reasonably applied; in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery
15 procedures, doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting
16 discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)
17 Furthermore, it is improper for a responding party to object that an interrogatory requests
18 confidential information; the responding party should instead seek a protective order to prevent
19 disclosure through a public record. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court
20 (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) Ifa party withholds documents based on privilege, a privilege
21 log should be provided. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).)
22 Unless a case involves an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal
23 autonomy, e.g., freedom from involuntary sterilization or the free to pursue consensual familiar
24 relationships, the party seeking to preclude discovery of confidential information must show that,
25 on balance, the interests in protecting confidential information predominate over the interests in
26 obtaining discovery in preparation for trial. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7
27 Cal.4th 1, 34.) “Doubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial
28 should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
-8-
BERDING
RISNCalda & BindWEILS2e500LLP. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
ala Cec, Caer 916
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 791.) “Trial courts in exercising their discretion
should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should
impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery ...” (Greyhound Corp. v.
Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383.) If the “intrusion is limited and confidential
information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to
know, privacy concerns are assuaged.” (Hill, infra, 7 Cal.4th at p, 38.)
Here, Stanford made improper nuisance objections under Standon. The request is not
vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope or overly broad and indiscriminate. In fact, the
request is limited to documents related to the PROJECT. Furthermore, Stanford made improper
10 confidentiality objections. Stanford ignored the procedures specified by the stipulation and
11 instead, objected to the document requests on the basis of confidentiality.
12 Moreover, the alleged confidential disclosure here would not involve an interest
13 fundamental to personal autonomy, so a court would apply balancing. Privacy concerms are
14 outweighed by the requested documents’ relevance regarding Stanford’s motive in terminating
15 Mr. Taghavi’s employment. Motive is very relevant—indeed, a central issue—in a wrongful
16 termination case. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure because Mr. Taghavi has already
17 stipulated to a protective order process that would protect the financial information from
18 disclosure to the general public. Thus, the privacy concern is miniscule compared to the
19 relevance of the requested documents.
20 The parties stipulated to confidential documents to address situations exactly like this one.
21 Stanford could designate the documents as confidential and they would be governed by the
22 stipulation. Under the Stipulation, Mr. Taghavi would not be able to release to the requested
23 documents to the general public, and a limited number of individuals could view them. Privacy
24 concerns are minimal, so Stanford should provide the highly relevant PROJECT documents.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the
27 PROJECT, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel
28 John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska,
-9-
BERDING
27S Naan& BieWEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
‘aloe eraSst 568
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise
J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, and/or John "Jack" Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or
from Alticor personnel R. Keith Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine
Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope.
The request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly
broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing.
10 Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy
1 rights, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks
12 any documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This
13 request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of
14 admissible evidence.
15 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
16 See “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 7.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
18 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford
19 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding Ali Taghavi, including without limitation
20 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personal John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherina A Heaney,
21 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen,
22 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner,
23 and/or John "Jack" Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith
24 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
26 Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The
27 request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., §
28 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and
-10-
BERDING & WEIL
{195i LLP. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
‘Was rek CalfoiaSe 386
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are
neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
See “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 7.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford
10 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation
11 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. loannidis, Catherine A. Heaney,
12 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen,
13 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner,
14 and/or John "Jack" Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith
15 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
17 Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The
18 request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., §
19 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and
20 indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
21 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
22 client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
23 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are
24 neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
25 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
26 See “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 7.
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
28 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO organizational charts for all information technology
-11-
BERDING
BSN & WEIL Se LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
‘alot Cree, Cale 9896
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
or information services departments or positions RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention
Research Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or
The Nutrilite Health Institute Fund for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The
request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and
indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
10 client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
11 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are
12 neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and
13 notwithstanding these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant will produce the
14 organizational charts included in the University's Administrative Guide.
15 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
16 A statement of compliance “shall state that the production ... demanded will be allowed
17 either in whole or in part, and that all documents ... in the demanded category that are in the
18 possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be
19 included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) A statement of the inability to
20 comply must state: (1) Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable
21 inquiry in an effort to locate responsive documents within Responding Party’s possession,
22 custody, or control; (2) the reason Responding Party is unable to comply: i.e., the requested
23 documents never existed, were lost, stolen, or inadvertently destroyed; or are no longer in
24 Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control; and (3) who has possession of the
25 documents. (/d., § 2031.230.)
26 Here, Stanford responded evasively by refusing to state that it will produce all non-
27 privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control, and instead, strictly limiting
28 production to a single document. In addition, Stanford’s remaining objections are improper, as
-12-
BERDING
ISN Cala & BdWEIL 500LLP
Sut 9596 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER.
‘als Cec, Ciera
RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
discussed in “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 2.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO storing emails or other electronic date regarding
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention Research
Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or The
Nutrilite Health Institute Wellness Fund, for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The
request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., §
10 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and
i indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further
12 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney-
13 client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing
14 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are not
15 relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
16 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
17 Blanket, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, without
18 producing any documents constitute nuisance objections that, without further explanation, could
19 subject a responding party to sanctions. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225
20 Cal.App.3d 898, 201.) Any party may request another party to produce documents “which are
21 relevant to the subject matter of the action, or are reasonably calculated to discover admissible
22 evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034,
Preview
yw S Fredrick A. Hagen, California Bar No. 196220 Kyle Z. Pineo, California Bar No. 317320 BERDING & WEIL LLP FILED 2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500 SAN MATEO COUNTY Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 925-838-2090 ¢ OCT i 2018: Facsimile: 925-820-5592 fhagen@berdingweil.com 5 kpineo@berdingweil.com = 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff ALI TAGHAVI a a o-oo Separate Statement SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 1432429 . | wn IAIN -—),—— -— IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 ALI TAGHAVI, an individual, No. 17CIV04570 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO 13 vs. COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND 14 THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND UNIVERSITY, a California nonprofit THINGS 15 corporation, doing business as STANFORD 3 UNIVERSITY; ALTICOR, INC., a Michigan [Cal. Rules of Court, r le 3.1345} 16 corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Date: November , 2018 17 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: Law and Motion 18 19 Complaint Filed: - October 4, 2017 ‘ Trial Date: December 17, 2018.3, 20 21 22 I RELEVANT DEFINITIONS 23 The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” or “WRITING” or “WRITINGS” shall 24 include all writings as defined by Section 250 of the California Evidence Code and Section 25 2016.020 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including ELETRONICALLY STORED 26 INFORMATION, whether handwritten, typed, printed, photocopied, photographed, or any other 27 mean of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation and 28 shall include data and metadata stored on servers, computers, mobile phones, personal wireless -1- BERDING USN alae &bidWEUL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER niS500996 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS NN ta ‘= o. devices, including without limitation computer files, programs, and any other information media; data stored on removable magnetic or optical media, including but not limited to magnetic tape, floppy disks, and recordable optical disks; data and metadata used for electronic data interchange, audit trails, emails, text messages, tweets, social media, digitized pictures and video, including but not limited to data stored in MPEG (Motion Picture Expert Group), JPEG (Joint Pictures Expert Group), and GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) formats; digitized audio, and voice mail. The term “YOU” and “YOUR” refers to and includes defendant Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, a California nonprofit corporation, doing business as Stanford University (“Stanford”), including without limitation the Stanford School of Medicine and the 10 Stanford Prevention Research Center and any affiliated entity, Stanford’s agents, employees, 11 insurance companies, their agents, their employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and 12 anyone else acting on Stanford’s behalf. 13 The term “AMWAY” shall mean and refer to and include Alticor, Inc., Amway 14 Corporation of Ada, Michigan, Nutrilite Products, Inc., and/or the Nutrilite Health Institute or 15 related or affiliated entities. 16 The term “PROJECT” shall mean and refer to the Wellness Living Laboratory Project or 17 “WELL Project” (also sometimes known as the Well for Life Project), which was and/or is 18 funded by AMWAY through an unrestricted gift to Stanford and/or The Nutrilite Health Institute 19 Wellness Fund and was and/or is directed by the Stanford Prevention Research Center (“SPRC”). 20 I. PLAINTIFF’S INSPECTION DEMANDS, SET NO. 1 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PROJECT. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 24 Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request 25 does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. § 26 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and 27 indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further 28 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- -2- BERDING BIS Wana eal & WEIL‘ae rekon ye 356 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER, RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: Blanket, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, without producing any documents constitute nuisance objections that, without further explanation, could subject a responding party to sanctions. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 201.) Any party may request another party to produce documents “which are relevant to the subject matter of the action, or are reasonably calculated to discover admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (a).) “The relevance of the subject matter standard 10 must be reasonably applied; in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery Il procedures, doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting 12 discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) 13 Furthermore, it is improper for a responding party to object that an interrogatory requests 14 confidential information; the responding party should instead seek a protective order to prevent 15 disclosure through a public record. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court 16 (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) If a party withholds documents based on privilege, a privilege 17 log should be provided. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) 18 Unless a case involves an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal 19 autonomy, e.g., freedom from involuntary sterilization or the free to pursue consensual familiar 20 relationships, the party seeking to preclude discovery of confidential information must show that, 21 on balance, the interests in protecting confidential information predominate over the interests in 22 obtaining discovery in preparation for trial. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 23 Cal.4th 1, 34.) “Doubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial 24 should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. 25 Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 791.) “Trial courts in exercising their discretion 26 should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should 27 impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery ... » (Greyhound Corp. v. 28 Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383.) If the “intrusion is limited and confidential 3- BERDING DIN &baWEIL LLP Sic3496 0 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER Walt Grek, Calenia RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged.” (Hill, infra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 38.) Here, Stanford made improper nuisance objections under Standon. The request is not vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope or overly broad and indiscriminate. In fact, the request is limited to PROJECT documents. Furthermore, Stanford made improper confidentiality objections. Indeed, the parties stipulated to a protective order process whereby a party claiming confidentiality could designate documents as “confidential”, thereby preventing disclosure of the documents to the public. 9 Stanford ignored the procedures specified by the stipulation and instead, objected to the 10 document requests on the basis of confidentiality. 11 Moreover, the alleged confidential disclosure here would not involve an_ interest 12 fundamental to personal autonomy, so a court would apply balancing. Privacy concerns are 13 outweighed by the PROJECT documents’ relevance regarding Stanford’s motive in terminating 14 Mr. Taghavi’s employment. Motive is very relevant—indeed, a central issue—in a wrongful 15 termination case. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure because Mr. Taghavi has already 16 stipulated to a protective order process that would protect the financial information from 17 disclosure to the general public. Thus, the privacy concern is miniscule compared to the 18 relevance of the requested documents. 19 The parties stipulated to confidential documents to address situations exactly like this one. 20 Stanford could designate the documents as confidential and they would be governed by the 21 stipulation. Under the Stipulation, Mr. Taghavi would not be able to release to the requested 22 documents to the general public, and a limited number of individuals could view them. Privacy 23 concerns are minimal, so Stanford should provide the highly relevant PROJECT documents. 24 Moreover, Stanford provided no privilege log to assess the validity of its privilege objections. 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all work performed by Ali Taghavi at 27 Stanford and/or for the PROJECT. 28 Ml 4. BERDING brs & bingWEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER. WanaNeasa Get Clfons Sue 9396 60 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 10 (See rule statements in “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for 11 Production No. 1.) 12 Here, Stanford made improper nuisance objections under Standon. The request is not 13 vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope or overly broad and indiscriminate. In fact, the 14 request is limited to documents related to work by Ali Taghavi. Furthermore, Stanford made 15 improper confidentiality objections. Stanford ignored the procedures specified by the stipulation 16 and instead, objected to the document requests on the basis of confidentiality. 17 Moreover, the alleged confidential disclosure here would not involve an_ interest 18 fundamental to personal autonomy, so a court would apply balancing. Privacy concerns are 19 outweighed by the requested documents’ relevance regarding Stanford’s motive in terminating 20 Mr. Taghavi’s employment. Motive is very relevant—indeed, a central issue—in a wrongful 21 termination case. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure because Mr. Taghavi has already 22 stipulated to a protective order process that would protect the financial information from 23 disclosure to the general public. Thus, the privacy concern is miniscule compared to the 24 relevance of the requested documents. 25 The parties stipulated to confidential documents to address situations exactly like this one. 26 Stanford could designate the documents as confidential and they would be governed by the 27 stipulation. Under the Stipulation, Mr. Taghavi would not be able to release to the requested 28 documents to the general public, and a limited number of individuals could view them. Privacy 5. BERDING 2S Nate & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ‘Walt Cec, CallenS2094595 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS concerns are minimal, so Stanford should provide the highly relevant PROJECT documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford and Alticor regarding the PROJECT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further 10 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- ll client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing 12 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. 13 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 14 See “Reason Further Response Should. be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 2. 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 16 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Ali Taghavi, including without limitation all 17 personnel files and/or files regarding the investigation of Mr. Taghavi’s claims of wrongful 18 termination. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 20 Objection. The request is vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request 21 does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. § 22 2031.030.) The terms “investigation” and “wrongful termination” call for a legal conclusion and 23 are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] 24 overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. 25 Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy 26 rights, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any 27 documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. Subject to, and 28 notwithstanding these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant will produce -6- & WEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO: COMPEL FURTHER ISN ‘Walt Calabi Cec, ClinSte 54595 s00| RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS Plaintiffs personnel file. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: A statement of compliance “shall state that the production ... demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents ... in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) A statement of the inability to comply must state: (1) Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate responsive documents within Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control; (2) the reason Responding Party is unable to comply: i.e., the requested 10 documents never existed, were lost, stolen, or inadvertently destroyed; or are no longer in 11 Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control; and (3) who has possession of the 12 documents. (/d., § 2031.230.) 13 Here, Stanford responded evasively by refusing to state that it will produce all non- 14 privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control, and instead, strictly limiting 15 production to Mr. Taghavi’s personnel file. In addition, Stanford’s remaining objections are 16 improper, as discussed in “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for 17 Production No. 2. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford 20 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation 21 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, 22 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, 23 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, 24 and/or John “Jack” Farguhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith 25 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. 26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 27 Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The 28 request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc. § -7- BERDING 2196 & WEILLLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ‘ales cana Cec, CainSuse 9195 0 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is [sic] overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: Blanket, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, without producing any documents constitute nuisance objections that, without further explanation, could 10 subject a responding party to sanctions. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 11 Cal.App.3d 898, 201.) Any party may request another party to produce documents “which are 12 relevant to the subject matter of the action, or are reasonably calculated to discover admissible 13 evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (a).) “The relevance of the subject matter standard 14 must be reasonably applied; in accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery 15 procedures, doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting 16 discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) 17 Furthermore, it is improper for a responding party to object that an interrogatory requests 18 confidential information; the responding party should instead seek a protective order to prevent 19 disclosure through a public record. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court 20 (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 23.) Ifa party withholds documents based on privilege, a privilege 21 log should be provided. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) 22 Unless a case involves an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal 23 autonomy, e.g., freedom from involuntary sterilization or the free to pursue consensual familiar 24 relationships, the party seeking to preclude discovery of confidential information must show that, 25 on balance, the interests in protecting confidential information predominate over the interests in 26 obtaining discovery in preparation for trial. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 27 Cal.4th 1, 34.) “Doubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s preparation for trial 28 should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. -8- BERDING RISNCalda & BindWEILS2e500LLP. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ala Cec, Caer 916 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 791.) “Trial courts in exercising their discretion should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery ...” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 383.) If the “intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged.” (Hill, infra, 7 Cal.4th at p, 38.) Here, Stanford made improper nuisance objections under Standon. The request is not vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope or overly broad and indiscriminate. In fact, the request is limited to documents related to the PROJECT. Furthermore, Stanford made improper 10 confidentiality objections. Stanford ignored the procedures specified by the stipulation and 11 instead, objected to the document requests on the basis of confidentiality. 12 Moreover, the alleged confidential disclosure here would not involve an interest 13 fundamental to personal autonomy, so a court would apply balancing. Privacy concerms are 14 outweighed by the requested documents’ relevance regarding Stanford’s motive in terminating 15 Mr. Taghavi’s employment. Motive is very relevant—indeed, a central issue—in a wrongful 16 termination case. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure because Mr. Taghavi has already 17 stipulated to a protective order process that would protect the financial information from 18 disclosure to the general public. Thus, the privacy concern is miniscule compared to the 19 relevance of the requested documents. 20 The parties stipulated to confidential documents to address situations exactly like this one. 21 Stanford could designate the documents as confidential and they would be governed by the 22 stipulation. Under the Stipulation, Mr. Taghavi would not be able to release to the requested 23 documents to the general public, and a limited number of individuals could view them. Privacy 24 concerns are minimal, so Stanford should provide the highly relevant PROJECT documents. 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the 27 PROJECT, including without limitation COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel 28 John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, -9- BERDING 27S Naan& BieWEIL LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ‘aloe eraSst 568 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, and/or John "Jack" Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. 10 Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy 1 rights, the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks 12 any documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This 13 request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of 14 admissible evidence. 15 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 16 See “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 7. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 18 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford 19 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding Ali Taghavi, including without limitation 20 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personal John P.A. Ioannidis, Catherina A Heaney, 21 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, 22 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, 23 and/or John "Jack" Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith 24 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 26 Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The 27 request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 28 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and -10- BERDING & WEIL {195i LLP. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ‘Was rek CalfoiaSe 386 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: See “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 7. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between Stanford 10 personnel and Alticor personnel regarding the PROJECT, including without limitation 11 COMMUNICATIONS to or from Stanford personnel John P.A. loannidis, Catherine A. Heaney, 12 Sandra J. Winter, Ann Hsing, Judith (Jodi) Prochaska, Marcia Stefanick, Lisa Henriksen, 13 Michaela Kiernan, Tamica Garner, Randall S. Stafford, Elise J. Wang, Christopher Gardner, 14 and/or John "Jack" Farquhar and COMMUNICATIONS to or from Alticor personnel R. Keith 15 Randolph, Audra Davies, Sam Rehnborg, Catherine Ehrenberger, and/or Paul Seehra. 16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 17 Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The 18 request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 19 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and 20 indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further 21 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- 22 client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing 23 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are 24 neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 25 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 26 See “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 7. 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 28 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO organizational charts for all information technology -11- BERDING BSN & WEIL Se LLP PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ‘alot Cree, Cale 9896 RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS or information services departments or positions RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention Research Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or The Nutrilite Health Institute Fund for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- 10 client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing 11 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are 12 neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and 13 notwithstanding these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant will produce the 14 organizational charts included in the University's Administrative Guide. 15 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 16 A statement of compliance “shall state that the production ... demanded will be allowed 17 either in whole or in part, and that all documents ... in the demanded category that are in the 18 possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be 19 included in the production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) A statement of the inability to 20 comply must state: (1) Responding Party has conducted a diligent search and made a reasonable 21 inquiry in an effort to locate responsive documents within Responding Party’s possession, 22 custody, or control; (2) the reason Responding Party is unable to comply: i.e., the requested 23 documents never existed, were lost, stolen, or inadvertently destroyed; or are no longer in 24 Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control; and (3) who has possession of the 25 documents. (/d., § 2031.230.) 26 Here, Stanford responded evasively by refusing to state that it will produce all non- 27 privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control, and instead, strictly limiting 28 production to a single document. In addition, Stanford’s remaining objections are improper, as -12- BERDING ISN Cala & BdWEIL 500LLP Sut 9596 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER. ‘als Cec, Ciera RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS discussed in “Reason Further Response Should be Compelled” for Request for Production No. 2. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO storing emails or other electronic date regarding DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the Stanford Prevention Research Center, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Stanford Department of Medicine and/or The Nutrilite Health Institute Wellness Fund, for the time period January 1, 2014, through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Objection. The request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to its intended scope. The request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 10 2031.030.) Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is it is overly broad and i indiscriminate as to time and scope, burdensome, oppressive and harassing. Defendant further 12 objects to the extent the request seeks any documents protected by privacy rights, the attorney- 13 client privilege or the work product doctrine, and to the extent it seeks any documents containing 14 trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This request seeks documents that are not 15 relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 16 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 17 Blanket, boilerplate objections that a request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, without 18 producing any documents constitute nuisance objections that, without further explanation, could 19 subject a responding party to sanctions. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 20 Cal.App.3d 898, 201.) Any party may request another party to produce documents “which are 21 relevant to the subject matter of the action, or are reasonably calculated to discover admissible 22 evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034,