Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2· PETERD. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General 1/24/2020
3 JERRY J. DESCHLER
Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 215691
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916) 210-7871
Fax: (916) 324-5567
7 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
8 Board of Trustees of the California State UniversityJ
which is the State of California acting in its higher
9 education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees
of the California State UniversityJ State of
10 California JJ)J Cynthia DaleyJ 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' STATUS REPORT
17 REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
v. TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
18 DOCUMENTS
19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA Date: January 29, 2020
STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF Time: .1:30 p.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 Defendants. Action Filed: April 24, 2019
23
24 Pursuant t9 this Court's request on November 26, 2019, Defendants hereby submit the
25 following status report regarding the parties' discovery dispute in response to :Plaintiff Teresa
26 Randolph's ("Randolph") Motion To Compel Production of Documents. Defendants planned to
27 submit a joint report as requested by the Court, but were notified by Randolph's counsel on
28 January 23, 2019 that Randolph was not interested in submitting a joint report.
1
Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (19CV01226)
1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL STATUS OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE
2 As ordered by this Court, the Parties further met and conferred via telephone on January 9,
3 2020. This was the first date Randolph's counsel was available and willing to discuss the
4 remaining outstanding items of discovery.
5 The parties resolved some of the remaining disputed items, partially resolved some items,
6 and did not resolve others, as follows:
7 • The parties resolved all disputes as to Requests for Production Nos. 15, 18, 23, 37,
8 43, 55, 58, 63, and 70.
9 • Defendants object the scope of documents sought by the following Requests for
10 Production Nos. 33, 81, and 83-87, which seek electronically stored information
11 ("ESI"). Defendants agree to search and produce records that are proportionally
12 related to the scope of issues in the present case. However, the parties have not
13 reached an agreement as to the scope of records sought.
14 • Defendants object to Requests for Production Nos. 64, 67, 82, and 88.
· 15 With regard to Randolph's assertion that Defendants provided only boilerplate objections in
16 response to her requests, Defendants respectfully remind the Court that, as set forth more fully in
17 Defendants' Opposition and the attached communications between counsel, Defendants began
18 requesting an extension of time to respond approximately two weeks_ before responses were due,
19 and informed Randolph's counsel that defense counsel had not yet received the extensive
20 documents requested, could not review them, and thus could not yet ascertain what responsive
21 documents might exist, what might be objectionable, and_which objections to raise. As of the
22 date the responses were due, defense counsel again communicated that he had not yet received
23 and been able to review the documents, and again requested an extension of tirrte. Randolph's
24 counsel refused to provide an extension. Because the responses were due and defense counsel
25 could not ascertain what documents existed and what objections might apply, Defendants were
26 forced to assert all potentially-applicable objections or risk waiving them as being untimely.
27 III
28 ///
2
Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (l 9CVO 1226)
1 REQUEST FOR RULING ON MOTION
2 Defendants request that the Court rule on Defendants' objections to Randolph's Motion To
3 Compel, as set forth in their Opposition, primarily on the following grounds:
4 First, Randolph is barred from attempting to compel any responses to this impermissible
5 second set of discovery requests. As set forth in Defendants' Opposition, Randolph initially
6 served premature requests for production on April 25, 2019, and Defendants timely objected.
7 Rather than meet and confer or propound a different set of discovery after Defendants' timely
8 objection, Randolph simply re-served an identical set of requests for production on June 19, 2019.
9 Randolph is barred from propounding duplicate discovery and then attempting to compel
1o compliance with that belated, duplicate discovery. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th
11 1403, 1408, citing Professional Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d
12 490 [party who fails to timely compel compliance with an earlier discovery request is barred from
13 attempting to "avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the
14 same question again."].)
15 Second, Randolph has never established the requisite "good cause" for any of her requests
16 for production, as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.310, subd. (b )(1 ). A party
17 seeking to compd further responses or documents in response to a request for production must,
18 for each request at issue, set forth a "statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling
19 further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute." (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule
20 3.1345, subd. (c)(3).) Randolph has never done so.
21 Defendants have complied with or are in the process of complying with the vast majority of
22 Randolph's excessive, overbroad requests, and have raised valid objections to the items
23 remaining in dispute. To prevent further waste of judicial resources, Defendants request the
24 Court issue an order denying Randolph's motion.
25 SUMMARY OF ITEMS REMAINING IN DISPUTE
26 Request No. 33: This request seeks all emails and communications relating to Randolph.
27 The parties agreed to limit the .number of witnesses whose communications are being sought, and
28 this resulted in a ESI database containing nearly 500,000 documents and over a million pages
3
Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents (l 9CVO 1226)
1 (potentially several million). Defense counsel has repeatedly requested that Randolph's counsel
2 agree on search terms that could potentially limit the number of documents to be revi~wed, as is
3 necessary when a party seeks review and production of ESI, but Randolph's counsel has never
4 provided any such search terms to date other than Randolph's name (which did not significantly
5 limit the database). Defendants are in the process of limiting the database on their own and
6 producing documents DefendaRts believe are responsive.
7 Requests Nos. 64, 67: These requests seek all documents pertaining to the identities of all
8 donors to the University's This Way To Sustainability Conference, amounts of donations, and
9 other related information. D'efendants object because the information sought is private and not
10 relevant to any of Randolph's causes of action or any issues in the case. Randolph has never
11 articulated any relevance for such documents and why they should be dfscoverable.
12 Request No. 82: This request seeks all pages from the University's Institute for
13 Sustainable Development website. Defendants object because the website is public information,
14 equally available to Randolph, and is not relevant to any of Randolph's causes of action or any.
15 issues in the case.
16 Requests Nos. 83-85: These requests seek all documents stored in folders held on a third
17 party cloud site, known as Box, that Randolph may have had access to during her employment,
18 whether or not related to her employment or any lawsuit allegations. Defendants object to these
19 requests because they are overbroad and Randolph has not agreed to limit them, they seek ESI,
20 and they seek documents held on a third party site, which would be unduly burdensome and
21 oppressive to download, review, and produce. These databases appear to hold potentially
22 millions of documents. Randolph has never articulated what specific documents she is looking
23 for or how they could be relevant to the lawsuit allegations.
24 RequesfNo. 86: This request seeks all documents in the "My Documents" folder in
25 Randolph's prior computer that she used while employed by Defendant California State
26 University. Defense counsel was informed that Randolph's computer had been given to another
27 employee after Randolph's employment ended, and could no longer be located. The computer
28 has since been located, and Defendants are in the process of imaging the computer's hard drive so
4
Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents ( 19CVO 1226)
that it can be reviewed and Defendants can ascertain what documents, if any, exist, and what
2 objections may be applicable, if any. 1
3 Request No. 87: This req·uest seeks all emails from Defendant California State
4 University' s "Sustainability" email account. This request seeks ESI and is overbroad and seeks
5 documents not relevant to any lawsuit allegations. Randolph has never articulated what
6 documents she is seeking or how they are relevant to the lawsuit allegations, and has not agreed
7 to limit the scope of documents sought.
8 With regard to the items above that are likely to yield a large number of documents that
9 constitute ESI, Defendants recommended to Randolph ' s counsel that the parties agree to a
10 protective order because discoverable information may also be private, sensitive, or irrelevant.
11 For example, because this case involves a University setting, emails and other documents are
12 likely to contain private student information, which the University is obligated by law to protect.
13 Defendants thus believe a protective order is appropriate and necessary. However, Randolph 's
14 counsel has not responded to the request to enter into a stipulated protective order.
15 Dated: January 24, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
16 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
17 PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
18
19
20
JERRY J. DESCHLER
21 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
22 Board of Trustees of the California State
University, which is the State of California
23 acting in its higher education capacity
(erroneously sued as "Trustees of the
24 California State University, State of
California"), Cynthia Daley, and Debra
25 Larson
26 SA2019102196
14369760.docx
27
1
For example, Defendants will need to ascertain whether any files exist on the computer
28 that relate or belong to other employees.
5
Defendants ' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (l 9CYO 1226)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
Case Name: Teresa Rai1dolph v. Trustees of the California State University, et al.
Case No.: 19CV01226
I declare:
I am 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 Gen~ral is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On January 24, 2020, I served the attached DEFENDANTS' STATUS REPORT
REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the internal mail
collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box
944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, addressed as follows:
Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law
PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
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 January 24, 2020, at Sacramento,
California.
Jenny Thirakul
Declarant Signature
SA20 19 102196
1437363 l.docx
Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2· PETERD. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 1/24/2020 3 JERRY J. DESCHLER Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 215691 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916) 210-7871 Fax: (916) 324-5567 7 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 8 Board of Trustees of the California State UniversityJ which is the State of California acting in its higher 9 education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees of the California State UniversityJ State of 10 California JJ)J Cynthia DaleyJ 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' STATUS REPORT 17 REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION v. TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 18 DOCUMENTS 19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA Date: January 29, 2020 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF Time: .1:30 p.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 Defendants. Action Filed: April 24, 2019 23 24 Pursuant t9 this Court's request on November 26, 2019, Defendants hereby submit the 25 following status report regarding the parties' discovery dispute in response to :Plaintiff Teresa 26 Randolph's ("Randolph") Motion To Compel Production of Documents. Defendants planned to 27 submit a joint report as requested by the Court, but were notified by Randolph's counsel on 28 January 23, 2019 that Randolph was not interested in submitting a joint report. 1 Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (19CV01226) 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL STATUS OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 2 As ordered by this Court, the Parties further met and conferred via telephone on January 9, 3 2020. This was the first date Randolph's counsel was available and willing to discuss the 4 remaining outstanding items of discovery. 5 The parties resolved some of the remaining disputed items, partially resolved some items, 6 and did not resolve others, as follows: 7 • The parties resolved all disputes as to Requests for Production Nos. 15, 18, 23, 37, 8 43, 55, 58, 63, and 70. 9 • Defendants object the scope of documents sought by the following Requests for 10 Production Nos. 33, 81, and 83-87, which seek electronically stored information 11 ("ESI"). Defendants agree to search and produce records that are proportionally 12 related to the scope of issues in the present case. However, the parties have not 13 reached an agreement as to the scope of records sought. 14 • Defendants object to Requests for Production Nos. 64, 67, 82, and 88. · 15 With regard to Randolph's assertion that Defendants provided only boilerplate objections in 16 response to her requests, Defendants respectfully remind the Court that, as set forth more fully in 17 Defendants' Opposition and the attached communications between counsel, Defendants began 18 requesting an extension of time to respond approximately two weeks_ before responses were due, 19 and informed Randolph's counsel that defense counsel had not yet received the extensive 20 documents requested, could not review them, and thus could not yet ascertain what responsive 21 documents might exist, what might be objectionable, and_which objections to raise. As of the 22 date the responses were due, defense counsel again communicated that he had not yet received 23 and been able to review the documents, and again requested an extension of tirrte. Randolph's 24 counsel refused to provide an extension. Because the responses were due and defense counsel 25 could not ascertain what documents existed and what objections might apply, Defendants were 26 forced to assert all potentially-applicable objections or risk waiving them as being untimely. 27 III 28 /// 2 Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (l 9CVO 1226) 1 REQUEST FOR RULING ON MOTION 2 Defendants request that the Court rule on Defendants' objections to Randolph's Motion To 3 Compel, as set forth in their Opposition, primarily on the following grounds: 4 First, Randolph is barred from attempting to compel any responses to this impermissible 5 second set of discovery requests. As set forth in Defendants' Opposition, Randolph initially 6 served premature requests for production on April 25, 2019, and Defendants timely objected. 7 Rather than meet and confer or propound a different set of discovery after Defendants' timely 8 objection, Randolph simply re-served an identical set of requests for production on June 19, 2019. 9 Randolph is barred from propounding duplicate discovery and then attempting to compel 1o compliance with that belated, duplicate discovery. (See Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 58 Cal.App.4th 11 1403, 1408, citing Professional Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 12 490 [party who fails to timely compel compliance with an earlier discovery request is barred from 13 attempting to "avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the 14 same question again."].) 15 Second, Randolph has never established the requisite "good cause" for any of her requests 16 for production, as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.310, subd. (b )(1 ). A party 17 seeking to compd further responses or documents in response to a request for production must, 18 for each request at issue, set forth a "statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling 19 further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute." (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 20 3.1345, subd. (c)(3).) Randolph has never done so. 21 Defendants have complied with or are in the process of complying with the vast majority of 22 Randolph's excessive, overbroad requests, and have raised valid objections to the items 23 remaining in dispute. To prevent further waste of judicial resources, Defendants request the 24 Court issue an order denying Randolph's motion. 25 SUMMARY OF ITEMS REMAINING IN DISPUTE 26 Request No. 33: This request seeks all emails and communications relating to Randolph. 27 The parties agreed to limit the .number of witnesses whose communications are being sought, and 28 this resulted in a ESI database containing nearly 500,000 documents and over a million pages 3 Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents (l 9CVO 1226) 1 (potentially several million). Defense counsel has repeatedly requested that Randolph's counsel 2 agree on search terms that could potentially limit the number of documents to be revi~wed, as is 3 necessary when a party seeks review and production of ESI, but Randolph's counsel has never 4 provided any such search terms to date other than Randolph's name (which did not significantly 5 limit the database). Defendants are in the process of limiting the database on their own and 6 producing documents DefendaRts believe are responsive. 7 Requests Nos. 64, 67: These requests seek all documents pertaining to the identities of all 8 donors to the University's This Way To Sustainability Conference, amounts of donations, and 9 other related information. D'efendants object because the information sought is private and not 10 relevant to any of Randolph's causes of action or any issues in the case. Randolph has never 11 articulated any relevance for such documents and why they should be dfscoverable. 12 Request No. 82: This request seeks all pages from the University's Institute for 13 Sustainable Development website. Defendants object because the website is public information, 14 equally available to Randolph, and is not relevant to any of Randolph's causes of action or any. 15 issues in the case. 16 Requests Nos. 83-85: These requests seek all documents stored in folders held on a third 17 party cloud site, known as Box, that Randolph may have had access to during her employment, 18 whether or not related to her employment or any lawsuit allegations. Defendants object to these 19 requests because they are overbroad and Randolph has not agreed to limit them, they seek ESI, 20 and they seek documents held on a third party site, which would be unduly burdensome and 21 oppressive to download, review, and produce. These databases appear to hold potentially 22 millions of documents. Randolph has never articulated what specific documents she is looking 23 for or how they could be relevant to the lawsuit allegations. 24 RequesfNo. 86: This request seeks all documents in the "My Documents" folder in 25 Randolph's prior computer that she used while employed by Defendant California State 26 University. Defense counsel was informed that Randolph's computer had been given to another 27 employee after Randolph's employment ended, and could no longer be located. The computer 28 has since been located, and Defendants are in the process of imaging the computer's hard drive so 4 Defendants' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents ( 19CVO 1226) that it can be reviewed and Defendants can ascertain what documents, if any, exist, and what 2 objections may be applicable, if any. 1 3 Request No. 87: This req·uest seeks all emails from Defendant California State 4 University' s "Sustainability" email account. This request seeks ESI and is overbroad and seeks 5 documents not relevant to any lawsuit allegations. Randolph has never articulated what 6 documents she is seeking or how they are relevant to the lawsuit allegations, and has not agreed 7 to limit the scope of documents sought. 8 With regard to the items above that are likely to yield a large number of documents that 9 constitute ESI, Defendants recommended to Randolph ' s counsel that the parties agree to a 10 protective order because discoverable information may also be private, sensitive, or irrelevant. 11 For example, because this case involves a University setting, emails and other documents are 12 likely to contain private student information, which the University is obligated by law to protect. 13 Defendants thus believe a protective order is appropriate and necessary. However, Randolph 's 14 counsel has not responded to the request to enter into a stipulated protective order. 15 Dated: January 24, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 16 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 17 PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 18 19 20 JERRY J. DESCHLER 21 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 22 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California 23 acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees of the 24 California State University, State of California"), Cynthia Daley, and Debra 25 Larson 26 SA2019102196 14369760.docx 27 1 For example, Defendants will need to ascertain whether any files exist on the computer 28 that relate or belong to other employees. 5 Defendants ' Status Report Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents (l 9CYO 1226) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: Teresa Rai1dolph v. Trustees of the California State University, et al. Case No.: 19CV01226 I declare: I am 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 Gen~ral is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On January 24, 2020, I served the attached DEFENDANTS' STATUS REPORT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, addressed as follows: Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law PO Box 801 Ashland, OR 97520 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 January 24, 2020, at Sacramento, California. Jenny Thirakul Declarant Signature SA20 19 102196 1437363 l.docx