Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04145/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04145-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND MOTION FOR DEFENDANT’S

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT

ORDER

(Docket No. 247)

Plaintiff Donna Hines has filed a motion, in which she asks for the following relief: (1) that

the Court reconsider its order of December 23, 2009, see Docket No. 229 (order); (2) that the Court

order Defendant to comply with the December 23 order and/or sanction Defendant for failure to

comply with the same; (3) that the Court permit discovery beyond the numeric limits provided for in

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (4) that the Court extend the time for fact discovery. 

Because Ms. Hines has now filed a separate motion to extend the time for discovery, see Docket No.

253 (motion), which is set for hearing on March 31, 2010, the Court shall address only the first three

requests for relief.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 290 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Ms. Hines appears to be asking for reconsideration of that part of the Court’s December 23

order in which it denied Ms. Hines’s request for production of information related to the criteria

used to draft the Statements of Qualifications (“SOQs”) for the job positions at issue. Ms. Hines

argues that the Court should reconsider this ruling based on a document prepared by a third party,

CPS Human Resource Service (“CPS”). In the document, performed an organizational review of

Defendant CPUC’s Human Resources Department.

In its papers, CPUC argues that Ms. Hines’s motion for reconsideration must be rejected

outright because the Court cannot take judicial notice of the CPS document, as Ms. Hines has

requested. While, as a formal matter, the Court agrees that the CPS document does not fall within

the bounds of Federal Rule of Evidence 201, CPUC has failed to establish that the Court may

examine only admissible evidence for purposes of a discovery motion. Moreover, CPUC has not

made any contention that the CPS document is not authentic or unreliable. Accordingly, for

purposes of this motion, the Court shall consider the contents of the CPS document.

That being said, the Court does not find that the CPS document justifies reconsideration of

the December 23 order. Whether a party is entitled to reconsideration is governed by Civil Local

Rule 7-9. That rule provides that, a party moving for reconsideration of an order must show, e.g.,

the emergency of new material facts since the challenged order or a manifest failure by the court to

consider material facts presented to the court before issuance of the challenged order. See Civ. L.R.

7-9(b). Ms. Hines has failed to meet this standard. She has not shown, for example, that the CPS

document was not available to her prior to the issuance of the December 23 order. Nor was the CPS

document part of her original motion to compel.

Even if the Court were to take into consideration the contents of the CPS document, it would

still rule against Ms. Hines on the merits. Ms. Hines points to no part of the document in which CPS

makes any statements about discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. While the CPS document refers

to complaints being made that “the wrong candidates are too often promoted,” CPS Document at 5,

there is no indication that that is because of the way that SOQs are drafted. Similarly, while the CPS

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 290 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

1

 Plaintiff has been an employee of the CPUC as a PURA (i.e., a Public Utilities Regulatory

Analyst).

3

document refers to the need to improve the testing model for the PURA classes,1 see CPS Document

at 45, the criticism had nothing to do with the drafting of the criteria for the SOQs. See CPS

Document at 5 (stating that “[t]he traditional process of conducting an exam, developing an

appointment list several weeks later, and then holding job interviews in order to make a new hire is

not the best method to use in many cases” and “is especially inadequate when the employer needs to

hire people from outside civil service” or “when a new hire has demonstrated the ability to move up

the hierarchy faster than the exam calendar permits”).

In short, the Court concludes, as it did previously, that in order for Ms. Hines to litigate her

case she is in need of the SOQs themselves but has shown no need for information about the criteria

used to draft the SOQs. Because she has the SOQs themselves, Ms. Hines may argue that as,

phrased, they too often lead to the wrong candidate being promoted, are discriminatory, and so forth.

B. Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and/or to Sanction for Failure to Comply

According to Ms. Hines, CPUC has failed to comply with the December 23 order because it

has failed to produce: (1) documents related to two Commission Advisory positions for which she

applied and (2) documents related to CPUC requests for authorization of personnel actions from

state agencies (e.g., Department of Personnel Administration, State Personnel Board). Ms. Hines

also seems to be arguing that CPUC failed to produce documents within the timeframe ordered by

the Court on December 23.

To the extent Ms. Hines has complaints about the failure to produce documents, the Court is

satisfied from the declarations submitted by the CPUC that it has produced all responsive

information that it has. See generally Coffman Decl.; Lee Decl.; Mattias Decl. In light of these

declarations, any declaration from CPUC’s executive director or assistant general counsel is

unnecessary. To the extent responsive documents have not been produced within the timeframe

ordered by the Court, the alleged delay of one month is not excessive and Ms. Hines has not shown

that she has been prejudiced as a result. Certainly, the sanction sought by Ms. Hines -- i.e., waiver

of the attorney-client privilege -- is not appropriate under the circumstances.

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 290 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

4

Accordingly, the Court denies the relief requested by Ms. Hines.

C. Motion to Permit Discovery in Excess of Numeric Limits Imposed by Federal Rules

Finally, Ms. Hines asks that the Court give her leave to propound more than the twenty-five

interrogatories permitted by the Federal Rules. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a), a party

may be given leave to serve more than twenty-five interrogatories “to the extent consistent with Rule

26(b)(2).” Under Rule 26(b)(2), one factor for a court to consider is burden or expense of the

additional discovery weighed against the likely benefit of the additional discovery. In the instant

case, Ms. Hines’s primary argument is that more interrogatories are needed because of the

deficiencies identified in the CPS document. But, as reflected in the discussion above, that

document has no relevance to Ms. Hines’s case. While the document may discuss problems with the

Human Resources Department, nothing about the document indicates that the hiring or promotion

process within the CPUC is discriminatory or retaliatory. Because the likely benefit of additional

interrogatories is so small, it is easily outweighed by the burden of additional interrogatories on the

CPUC -- particularly given the current discovery deadlines in this case.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Hines’s motions are denied.

This order disposes of Docket No. 247.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 290 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Donna Hines 

268 Bush Street, #3204 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

415-205-3377 

Dated: March 15, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 290 Filed 03/15/10 Page 5 of 5