Fauceglia v. Univ. of S. Cal.
Fauceglia v. Univ. of S. Cal.
2020 WL 12048986 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
October 5, 2020
McDermott, John E., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and denied Defendant's Motion for Protective Order as to Topics 2-10, while imposing restrictions on the scope of the inquiry. The Court also has the authority to order the production of Electronically Stored Information, and the scope of discovery is extremely broad. Thus, Defendant needs to produce documents and other evidence relevant to the case.
Additional Decisions
Paulette Fauceglia
v.
University of Southern California, et al
v.
University of Southern California, et al
Case No. CV 19-04738 FMO (JEMx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed October 05, 2020
Counsel
Christine A. Yeroushalmi, Abrolat Law PC, El Segundo, CA, Nancy L. Abrolat, Abrolat Law PC, Manhattan Beach, CA, for Paulette Fauceglia.Elyse Anne MacNamara, Erika Amadi Iler, Keith W. Carlson, Carlson and Jayakumar LLP, David Richard Sugden, Call and Jensen PC, Newport Beach, CA, Ryan Patrick Kennedy, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Irvine, CA, George W. Abele, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for University of Southern California, et al.
McDermott, John E., United States Magistrate Judge
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND DOCUMENTS, AND OBTAIN DATES FOR DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES; MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (Dkt. Nos. 83 and 93)
*1 The Court will now address Topics 2-10 of Plaintiff Paulette Fauceglia's PMQ Deposition Notice and Request for Documents. (Dkt. 84-1, Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks to compel inquiry into those topics and production of documents on those topics. (Dkt. 84.) Defendant University of Southern California (“USC”) seeks a protective order preventing inquiry and production of documents on those topics. (Dkt.93.)
Topics 2-7 comprise USC men who engaged in sexual misconduct or other inappropriate behavior but were not disciplined or terminated or received less punishment that women faculty/employees do. Topics 8-10 are other females who were discriminated against.
Defendant claims that Plaintiff cannot rely on these nine individuals to prove context or valid comparisons and thus these topics are irrelevant and disproportionate. Defendant, however, bases its contention on cases decided at trial or on summary judgment. This Court has no authority to rule on disputed legal and factual issues on the merits or decide what evidence is admissible at trial. Those matters are reserved to the District Court.
This is discovery and the governing standard is provided by Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 26(b)(1). The Rule provides that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Rule 26(b)(1), moreover, goes on to provide that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.” Thus, the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is “extremely broad.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The question of relevancy should be construed liberally and “discovery should be allowed unless the information has no conceivable bearing on the case.”
This is a gender harassment and discrimination case brought under Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ¶ 2000(e). (Dkt. 24.) Paragraph 18 of the First Amended Complaint alleges as follows:
... the men were permitted to engage in extremely serious misconduct, such as highly offensive sexual harassment, including physical sexual harassment, being incompetent at their job requirements and working while intoxicated but USC and Selsted did not treat them in the hostile, belittling way that Plaintiff was treated.
Paragraph 12 alleges that her supervisor, Defendant Dr. Michael Selsted fired three women pathologists based on gender. The gist of this case is that USC men are judged by different standards than women, including how discipline and termination are imposed. Topics 2-10 are relevant to allegations in the Fist Amended Complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff already inquired about these individuals at Dr. Selsted's deposition without apparent objection or instruction not to answer.
*2 Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is DENIED as to Topics 2-10.
The Court, however, will impose restrictions on the scope of the inquiry to mitigate burden and to address proportionality. First, Defendant needs to produce documents only for items 1, 6, 8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 50-57 listed at pages 7 and 8 of the Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff, however, may inquire orally at the deposition about all 57 items for each witness as she sees fit. Second, Defendant need not produce “all documents” for these items, only those sufficient to document fully the facts sought by the items.
Plaintiff may have more than 7 hours to conduct her inquiry, pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1). Plaintiff may inquire on these topics on October 7 and 8 to the extent time permits.