Party Discovery: Oliver VS City of Oakland

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1    JOHN H. SCOTT, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 72578)
                        The Scott Law Firm
                   2    1388 Sutter Street, Ste. 715
                        San Francisco, CA 94109
                   3    Telephone: (415) 569-9600
                        Facsimile:     (415) 561-9609
                   4    E-mail: john@scottlawfirm.net
                   5    PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 107713)
                        P.O. Box 5843
                   6    Oakland, CA      94605
                        Telephone:     (510) 452-0292
                   7    E-mail:   pamela@pypesq.com
                   8    Attorneys for Plaintiff
                        MILDRED OLIVER
                   9
                  10
                  11                              SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                  12                                  COUNTY OF ALAMEDA - OAKLAND DIVISION
                  13
                  14
                  15    MILDRED OLIVER,                                            No.      RG19007799

                  16                      Plaintiff,                               SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
                                                                                   PAMELA Y. PRICE IN SUPPORT OF
                  17    v.                                                         PLAINTIFF MILDRED OLIVER’S
                                                                                   MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF POLICE
                  18    CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,                                   PERSONNEL INFORMATION
                                                                                   (“PITCHESS”) MOTION
                  19                      Defendants.
                                                                              /    Date:             FEBRUARY 16, 2022
                  20                                                               Time:             9:00 AM
                                                                                   Dept:             25
                  21
                                                                                   Reservation No.            N/A
                  22
                                                                                   Date Action Filed:         February 21, 2019
                  23                                                               Date FAC Filed:            April 23, 2019
                                                                                   Trial Date:                TBD
                  24
                  25             I, PAMELA Y. PRICE, hereby declare that:
                  26             1.       I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and one of the
                  27    attorneys for Plaintiff Mildred Oliver. I make this Supplemental Declaration on personal knowledge and
                  28    on information and belief in support of Ms. Oliver’s Motion for Discovery of Police Personnel

      13530P407-DIS                                                          -1-
                                              SUPP. DECLARATION OF PAMELA Y. PRICE (RG19007799)
                   1    Information (“Pitchess” Motion) and the disclosure of information in this action which Defendant City
                   2    of Oakland (City) contends is protected by Penal Code Section 832.7.
                   3             2.       Plaintiff contends that each of the disciplinary actions taken against her as well as the
                   4    decision to remove her from her position in Internal Affairs and reassign her to Patrol were motivated
                   5    by discriminatory and retaliatory animus and violated her civil rights under California’s Fair
                   6    Employment and Housing Act.
                   7             3.        Plaintiff Oliver seeks the disclosure of the employment records of Dominique
                   8    Arotzarena because he initiated and instigated a number of improper personnel actions against Sgt.
                   9    Oliver.   Any information in his employment records that may show a tendency or propensity on his part
                  10    to discriminate and/or retaliate against subordinate employees is relevant to her claims of retaliation and
                  11    gender discrimination by Defendant City. Material and substantial issues that will be raised at trial
                  12    include the alleged decisions to open an internal affairs investigation of Plaintiff for routine command
                  13    decisions after she complained about harassment and discrimination inside OPD.
                  14
                                 4.       Sgt. Oliver seeks the disclosure of the employment records of two of her co-workers in
                  15
                        Internal Affairs, Jason Anderson and Brad Baker, because they are similarly-situated employees who
                  16
                        were not subjected to retaliation or other adverse personnel actions as she was.                The protected
                  17
                        information in their employment records may help establish the City’s improper motives in taking the
                  18
                        adverse personnel actions against Sgt. Oliver.
                  19
                                 5.       Defendant City contends that it was justified in pursuing an investigation and discipline
                  20
                        against Sgt. Oliver because she allegedly failed to ensure public safety by stopping or addressing a
                  21
                        lethal threat. The contention is disputed and will be litigated at trial. Interrogatory No. 10 seeks the
                  22
                        identity of any similarly-situated or similarly-charged Supervisors in order to establish the City’s
                  23
                        improper motives in taking the adverse personnel actions against Sgt. Oliver. Sgt. Oliver intends to
                  24
                        pursue further Answers to Interrogatory No. 10.            The instant motion referenced any Sergeants disclosed
                  25
                        in response to Interrogatory No. 10 in order to address any objection based on Pitchess to providing that
                  26
                        information. Defendant City’s opposition to the motion on the grounds that it cannot identify those
                  27
                        supervisors is disingenuous because it can and will eventually have to identify other supervisors whom
                  28

      13530P407-DIS                                                          -2-
                                              SUPP. DECLARATION OF PAMELA Y. PRICE (RG19007799)