Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00375-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Despite the lack of timely notice, defendants agreed this motion could be heard on 1

December 8 in conjunction with their motion for summary judgment. (Defts.’ December 2, 2005

Opp’n at 2-3.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRA LEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0375 JFM PS

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY PROBATION ORDER

DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff’s December 1, 2005 motion for failure to disclose witnesses in violation

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(A)(1) came on for hearing December 8, 2005. Plaintiff appeared in propria

1

person. Kathleen J. Williams appeared for defendants. Upon review of the motion and the

documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

First, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to provide the phone number and

address of Marilynn Brown, former Solano County EEOC compliance officer. Defendants

Case 2:05-cv-00375-JFM Document 71 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 It appears plaintiff refers to defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts. 2

18. “As of August 30, 2004, the Solano County Probation Dept. had not developed

standards for interviewers to utilize in grading applicant writing samples.” Defendants based this

undisputed fact on declarations provided by defendants in support of their motion for summary

judgment.

52. “The grading standards for the writing samples LEE contends were not met

by the two young Caucasian candidates were created at Cliff Merrill’s direction after LEE filed

his complaint with the EEOC.” 

This response was based on Merrill’s declaration filed in support of defendants’ motion for

summary judgment.

2

respond that Ms. Brown stopped working for Solano County on July 16, 2005 and plaintiff was

informed in early October of that fact. Defendants also note that plaintiff did not request this

information in writing and Ms. Brown did not sign a declaration in support of defendants’ motion

for summary judgment. However, defendants have now supplemented their responses and

provide Ms. Brown’s last known home address. Plaintiff did not dispute this. Accordingly, this

request is moot and will be denied.

Second, plaintiff contends defendants have “refused to provide any tangible

authenticated documents from human resources that explained hypothetical situation for writing

sample,” and failed to disclose information used in the motion for summary judgment,

specifically “Declaration 18 and 52,” and contends that defendants’ failure to provide this in 2

their initial disclosures means they may not use them in support of their motion. Defendants

respond that the hypothetical question itself was given plaintiff pursuant to his subpoena served

on Gemma Grossi. Defendants contend they did not use the hypothetical question in their

motion for summary judgment, only an explanation of the written responses. 

In plaintiff’s exhibits submitted during the hearing, the Director of Solano County

Human Resources Department declared under penalty of perjury that there are no documents

responsive to the request for documents that explain when a hypothetical situation writing

sample was implemented and documents that explain how it works. (Pl.’s Ex. A.) Plaintiff has

been provided a copy of the hypothetical posed to applicants during the hiring process at issue

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00375-JFM Document 71 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 A copy of the hypothetical was appended to Ms. Grossi’s November 30, 2005 response. 

3

3

herein. Defendants cannot be required to produce documents that do not exist. This court finds 3

defendants did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(A)(1). Plaintiff’s second request is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 1, 2005

motion for failure to disclose is denied.

DATED: February 16, 2006. 

/001; lee0575.oah

Case 2:05-cv-00375-JFM Document 71 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 3