Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01179/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01179-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Michelle Tyler, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

City of San Diego, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Compel Documents from the City 

[ECF No. 95] 

 The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents from 

Defendant the City of San Diego (ECF No. 95) as set forth below.

1. The City’s Objections. 

The City makes, and purports to rely on, numerous recurring objections: 

a. Vague. The City does not purport to rely on this objection in withholding 

documents, so the Court does not rule on it. 

b. Overly broad, oppressive, burdensome, and seeking material not relevant 

to any claim or defense. This objection is addressed in the context of the 

particular requests, below. 

c. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The City’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) objection 

to producing Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) is overruled as the City 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 17
 2 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

has not sufficiently shown that the information is not reasonably accessible due 

to burden or expense. 

In its Amended Requests for Production, Plaintiffs include ESI in their 

definition of documents. (ECF No. 95-4, p. 3.) In December, 2014, the parties 

met and conferred as to search locations and search terms for the City’s ESI 

production of documents. (ECF No. 109-1, p. 2.) Plaintiffs proposed search 

locations and search terms which the City deemed unworkable and overly 

burdensome. (Id., pp. 2-3.) On February 25, 2015, the City proposed search 

terms, which were not acceptable to Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 95-3, p. 2.) On 

March 5, 2015, the parties agreed that the search locations should include email 

accounts for the Filner Mayoral Staff, the Human Resources Managerial Staff, 

the Equal Employment Investigations Staff, and the City Councilmembers for 

the period of January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2013. (ECF No. 95-4, p 4.) The 

parties did not agree as to whether the email account of City Attorney Jan 

Goldsmith should be searched. (Id.) The parties did not agree to search terms. 

Citing to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B), the City asserted 

in its Response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Request for Production of 

Documents (Set One) that “The City will not search all of its ESI without 

clearly limited search terms and protocols that minimize cost, including, if 

necessary, cost allocation to Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 95-5 (throughout).) It 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 17
 3 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

appears the City has, in fact, undertaken no ESI search and has produced no 

responsive ESI. 

Rule 26(b)(2)(B) allows for a two-tier approach to the discovery of ESI. 

See, e.g., U.S. v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., No. 10cv1401-JLS (WVG), 2015 

WL 818032, at *10-*12 (S.D. Cal. Feb.20, 2015). First, “[a] responding party 

should produce electronically stored information that is relevant, not privileged 

and reasonably accessible, subject to the [Rule 26](b)(2)(C) limitations that 

apply to all discovery.” See Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 

Amendments to Rule 26(b)(2); S.S. Gensler, 1 Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rules and Commentary RULE 26 (Mar. 2014) (“discovery from 

reasonably accessible ESI sources—e.g., active computer files or e-mail 

records—proceeds in the same manner as would discovery from paper sources. 

. . . No special request must be made, and no special standards apply.”) 

(footnotes omitted). 

Second, upon assessing the scope of accessible ESI, the parties may 

confer over searching less accessible sources of ESI. Advisory Committee 

Note to Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (May 27, 2005) 

(“Lawyers sophisticated in these problems are developing a two-tier practice in 

which they first sort through the information that can be provided from easily 

accessed sources and then determine whether it is necessary to search the 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 17
 4 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

difficult-to-access sources.”). Should the parties reach an impasse, the party 

from whom discovery is requested may obtain a protective order if they present 

specific information – generally supported by an affidavit or declaration – 

demonstrating that the information is not reasonably accessible because of 

undue burden or cost. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B); Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 

452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981) (“To establish ‘good cause’ for a protective order 

. . . courts have insisted on a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as 

distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements”) (citation and 

internal quotation omitted); City of Seattle v. Prof’l Basketball Club, LLC, No. 

07cv1620, 2008 WL 539809, *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2008) (“In opposing 

discovery on the grounds of overbreadth, a party has the burden ‘to provide 

sufficient detail in terms of time, money and procedure required to produce the 

requested documents.’”). 

Importantly, “Rule [26(b)(2)(B)] should not be invoked as a means to 

forestall the production of materials that are admittedly relevant and readily 

accessible.” Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 01cv1644, 2010 WL 

502721, *19 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010). As with all the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 26(b)(2)(B) must “be construed and administered to secure the 

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 17
 5 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

In this case, the City rejected Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms and 

protocols. But the City did not, then, use search terms and protocols it deemed 

reasonable to produce responsive electronically stored documents. Nor did the 

City seek a protective order from the Court. Either of these would have been 

preferable to what the City did: conduct no search and allow the production date 

to come and go without producing any ESI. See Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. 

Ins. Co. , No. 12cv257, 2014 WL 4373210, *5 (M.D. La. Sept. 3, 2014) (“The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mandate that the parties agree on 

search criteria for ESI . . . . Failure to reach an agreement on search terms does 

not relieve [responding party] of its obligation to respond to discovery requests. 

[Responding party] could have conducted its own search for responsive, nonprivileged ESI and produced those documents . . . within the timeframe 

allowed by the court. In the alternative, [responding party] could have sought 

relief from the court . . . .”). 

The document requests at issue seek relevant information from the City. 

In its opposition to this motion to compel, the City has not met its burden to 

show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden 

or cost. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The City attaches a chart showing the 

number of email hits for individual search terms, but not for search terms run 

conjunctively (i.e. “Filner” alone, and “sex” alone, but not “Filner” and “sex” in 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 17
 6 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

the same email). (ECF No. 109-3.) Furthermore, the City offers no evidence of 

the effort or cost involved in conducting the ESI search and production upon 

which the Court could conclude that the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

The City shall produce responsive ESI by May 13, 2015 from the 

accounts of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and the agreed upon custodians set 

forth above. 

d. Attorney-client privilege. The Court reserves its ruling on the City’s 

assertions of the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. The 

privilege log before the Court is insufficient for Plaintiffs and the Court to 

evaluate the validity of the assertions of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

The City shall serve its final privilege log on Plaintiffs by May 13, 2015 and 

that log shall identify for each document: the date of authorship, the identity 

and position of its author(s), the identity and position of its recipient(s), the 

location, source and access rights to the document (such that it can be 

determined who would have access to each document), a cast of characters (to 

understand the roles of all authors and recipients), a more detailed document 

description, and a more detailed explanation as to why the document is being 

withheld (without revealing information itself privileged). Plaintiff is granted 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 6 of 17
 7 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

leave to file a motion seeking to compel specific documents listed on the 

privilege log on or before May 20, 2015. 

e. Personal information. The Court reserves its ruling on the City’s privacy 

objections. The City has asserted that certain requests seek documents “that 

contain the personal information of the City’s employees and other third parties. 

To protect the privacy rights of these individuals, the City will not produce this 

information.” 

Specifically as to Amended Request 18 for Filner’s personnel file, the 

City objects that “this request for production seeks documents that contain a 

City’s employee’s personal information ‘the disclosure of which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Cal. Gov’t Code § 

6254; see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552. To protect the privacy rights of this individual, 

the City will not produce this information.” 

The City has included in its privilege log documents it is withholding as a 

result of this claim of privacy, but has failed to provide a privilege log which is 

adequate for Plaintiffs and the Court to evaluate the validity of the assertion of 

privacy. Furthermore, the City does not indicate that it has produced 

documents with personal information redacted, and, instead, appears to have 

fully withheld any documents which contain any information the City deems to 

be “personal.” 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 7 of 17
 8 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The City is to review each document being withheld based on a claim of 

privacy, produce documents if appropriate (redacting if necessary), and cure the 

deficiencies identified above with its final privilege log by May 13, 2015. As a 

protective order may be appropriate to govern the parties’ use of documents 

containing private information, the City is granted leave to file a joint or ex 

parte (if the parties are unable to agree) motion for a protective order addressing 

the parties’ use of the discovery by May 8, 2015. As to any documents the City 

seeks to withhold (or produces in redacted form) on the basis of privacy, the 

City is to file a motion for protective order addressing why each document 

should be excused from production by May 20, 2015. 

f. Equally available. The City’s equally available objection is overruled. 

The City asserts that Plaintiffs’ requests seek documents that are equally 

available to Plaintiffs and states, “The City will not produce these [unspecified] 

documents because this request is burdensome and harassing as these 

documents are equally available to the Plaintiffs.” Other than referencing 

general categories of documents (those in propounding parties’ possession, 

those in court files, and published documents), the City does not identify which 

documents are being withheld, and does not set forth how production of the 

documents that are within the City’s custody and control is burdensome and 

oppressive. Thus, the City has failed to establish that the documents can be 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 8 of 17
 9 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

obtained from another source that is “more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive” than the City producing what is in its possession. This objection is 

overruled. On or before May 13, 2015, the City is to produce all responsive 

documents within its custody and control, notwithstanding their potential equal 

availability Plaintiffs, other than documents produced by Plaintiffs or part of the 

court docket in this case. 

g. Mediation privilege. (RFP 2.) The City responds that Request 2 seeks 

documents which are allegedly protected by a “mediation privilege,” but fails to 

identify the documents to which it refers. The City states it “will not produce 

these documents.” The City has not identified any documents in its privilege 

log that it purports to be withholding based upon “mediation privilege.” By 

May 13, 2015, the City must supplement its response to attest that it is not 

withholding any documents based upon “mediation privilege” or identify with 

particularity any such documents being withheld in its final privilege log. 

h. Deliberative and mental process privileges. (RFP 2.) The City responds 

that the request seeks documents which are allegedly protected by “the 

deliberative and mental process privileges.” The City states it “will not produce 

these documents.” The only documents the City has identified in its privilege 

log that it purports to be withholding on this basis are “Draft Memos and emails 

dated 7-14-2-15 by Todd Gloria.” By May 13, 2015, the City must identify 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 9 of 17
 10 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

more particularly the documents being withheld based on these privileges in its 

final privilege log. 

i. Sources of responsive discovery. Although not associated with an express 

objection, certain of the City’s responses purport to limit the locations the City 

will search for documents, as follows: “City is conducting a search . . . from 

Filner’s (former) staff still employed by the City, the City’s Equal Employment 

Investigations Office, and the City’s Human Resources Department.” The City 

is not excused from conducting a reasonable search for all non-privileged 

responsive documents in City’s custody and control, regardless of location. 

2. The Court’s Rulings as to Specific Requests. 

On or before May 13, 2015, the City shall provide Plaintiffs with both amended 

written responses to Plaintiffs’ amended document requests and the City’s final 

document production in response to the Court’s rulings herein. The Court’s rulings 

as to the specific document requests are set forth in the chart below: 

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

1 All 2013 reports CONCERNING 

FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL 

DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT or ABUSIVE conduct. 

(For this question, the term “reports” 

means a written investigative report, 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled as to the relevant time 

period and is sustained only to the 

extent the request seeks documents 

concerning abusive conduct that is not 

sexually harassing or sexually 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 10 of 17
 11 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

internal investigation, account, story, 

rundown, chronicle, history, outline, 

narrative, version, blow by blow, write 

up, description, information, message, 

opinion, record, statement, and or a 

declaration.) 

discriminatory. 

 

2 All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by 

the CITY, CITY department 

directors, CITY Directors (including 

Donna Frye), CITY department heads, 

CITY managerial employees, CITY 

supervisors, CITY mayoral staff, CITY 

security staff, and CITY council 

members, or otherwise in its or their 

possession, custody or control, 

CONCERNING any oral or written 

report, allegation, charge or complaint 

(regardless of how the CITY 

characterizes the report, allegation, 

charge or complaint), whether informal or 

formal, about FILNER’s alleged 

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled. 

3 All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by 

the CITY, CITY department directors, 

CITY Directors (including Donna Frye), 

CITY department heads, CITY 

managerial employees, CITY supervisors, 

CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, 

and CITY council members, or otherwise 

in its or their possession, custody or 

control, CONCERNING any oral or 

written report, allegation, charge or 

complaint (regardless of how the CITY 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained. Relevant documents 

related to abusive conduct that is of a 

sexually harassing or sexually 

discriminatory nature will be 

responsive to Amended Request 1. 

Consistent with the Court’s prior 

orders related to the scope of 

deposition testimony, and for the 

reasons set forth therein, documents 

concerning abusive conduct that is not 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 11 of 17
 12 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

characterizes the report, allegation, 

charge or complaint), whether formal or 

informal, that FILNER was allegedly 

ABUSIVE. 

sexually harassing or sexually 

discriminatory need not be produced. 

4 All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by 

the CITY, CITY department directors, 

CITY Directors (including Donna Frye), 

CITY department heads, CITY 

managerial employees, CITY supervisors, 

CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, 

and CITY council members, or otherwise 

in its or their possession, custody or 

control, CONCERNING any oral or 

written report, allegation, charge or 

complaint (regardless of how the CITY 

characterizes the report, allegation, 

charge or complaint), whether formal or 

informal, that FILNER allegedly needed 

any type of therapy. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled as to the relevant time 

period; overruled as to the sources to 

be searched; and sustained only to the 

extent the request seeks documents 

concerning a need for therapy if 

specifically and clearly unrelated to 

issues of sexual harassment and/or 

sexual discrimination. 

5 All DOCUMENTS maintained or kept by 

the CITY, CITY department 

directors, CITY Directors, CITY 

department heads, CITY managerial 

employees, CITY supervisors, CITY 

mayoral staff, CITY security staff, and 

CITY council members, or otherwise in 

its or their possession, custody or control, 

CONCERNING any oral or written 

report, allegation, charge or complaint of 

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT (regardless of how the 

CITY characterizes the report, allegation, 

charge or complaint), against the CITY, 

CITY department directors, CITY 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained in part. Balancing the 

needs of the case against the City’s 

burden, the Objection 2 is overruled in 

so far as the City shall produce 

responsive documents for the time 

period of January 1, 2010 to the 

present concerning any report, 

allegation, charge or complaint of 

sexual discrimination or harassment 

against the listed positions other than 

the non-supervisory positions within 

the City’s mayoral staff and security 

staff. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 12 of 17
 13 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

Directors, CITY department heads, CITY 

managerial employees, CITY supervisors, 

CITY mayoral staff, CITY security staff, 

and CITY council members, from 

January 1, 2007 to the present. 

6 All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING 

any CITY supervisor’s knowledge Of 

FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL 

DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled. 

7 Al1 2013 DOCUMENTS 

CONCERNING any CITY supervisor’s 

knowledge that FILNER was allegedly 

ABUSIVE. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained. Relevant documents 

related to knowledge of abusive 

conduct that is of a sexually harassing 

or sexually discriminatory nature will 

be responsive to Amended Request 6. 

Consistent with the Court’s prior 

orders related to the scope of 

deposition testimony, and for the 

reasons set forth therein, documents 

concerning knowledge of abusive 

conduct that is not sexually harassing 

or sexually discriminatory need not be 

produced. 

8 All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING 

any CITY supervisor’s knowledge that 

FILNER allegedly needed any type of 

therapy in 2013. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled as to the relevant time 

period; overruled as to the sources to 

be searched; and sustained only to the 

extent the request seeks documents 

concerning knowledge of a need for 

therapy if specifically and clearly

unrelated to issues of sexual 

harassment and/or sexual 

discrimination. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 13 of 17
 14 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

9 All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING 

any CITY Council person’s knowledge of 

FILNER's alleged SEXUAL 

DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled. 

10 All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING 

any CITY Council person’s knowledge 

that FILNER was allegedly abusive. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained. Relevant documents 

related to knowledge of abusive 

conduct that is of a sexually harassing 

or sexually discriminatory nature will 

be responsive to Amended Request 9. 

Consistent with the Court’s prior 

orders related to the scope of 

deposition testimony, and for the 

reasons set forth therein, documents 

concerning knowledge of abusive 

conduct that is not sexually harassing 

or sexually discriminatory need not be 

produced. 

11 All 2013 DOCUMENTS CONCERNING 

any CITY Council person’s knowledge 

that FILNER may have needed any type 

of therapy. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled as to the relevant time 

period; overruled as to the sources to 

be searched; and sustained only to the 

extent the request seeks documents 

concerning knowledge of a need for 

therapy if specifically and clearly

unrelated to issues of sexual 

harassment and/or sexual 

discrimination. 

13 All 2013 DOCUMENTS reviewed by the 

San Diego City Council advising 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 14 of 17
 15 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

them that the City was, or may be, liable 

for FILNER’S alleged SEXUAL 

DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT. 

16 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING 

FILNER’S Chief(s) of Staff and or 

Deputy Chief(s) of Staff, (including but 

not limited to Vince Hall, Allen Jones and 

Lee Burdick), and FILNER’s alleged 

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT or ABUSIVE conduct. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained, in part, as to the relevant 

time period. Consistent with 

Plaintiffs’ other requests, the request is 

limited to 2013 documents. Further, 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained to the extent the request 

seeks documents concerning abusive 

conduct that is not sexually harassing 

or sexually discriminatory. 

17 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any 

member of FILNER’S security 

staff and FILNER’s alleged SEXUAL 

DISCRIMINATION OR 

HARASSMENT or ABUSIVE conduct. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained, in part, as to the relevant 

time period. Consistent with 

Plaintiffs’ other requests, the request is 

limited to 2013 documents. Further, 

City’s Objection 2 is sustained to the 

extent the request seeks documents 

concerning abusive conduct that is not 

sexually harassing or sexually 

discriminatory. City’s Objection 2 is 

sustained to the extent the request 

seeks documents concerning a nonsupervisory member of Filner’s 

security staff’s alleged sexual 

discrimination or harassment or 

abusive conduct. 

18 FILNER’S personnel file. The City’s only objection is to 

privacy. The Court’s ruling as to this 

request is set forth above in Section 

1.e. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 15 of 17
 16 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

25, 

26, 

28-

35 

[Requests not restated here.] The City makes no objection that 

request is overly broad, oppressive, 

burdensome, and seeks material not 

relevant to any claim or defense. The 

City is to produce responsive 

documents subject to the rulings set 

forth above in Section 1. 

40 DOCUMENT(s) showing the CITY’S 

agreement to not discriminate while 

administering federal financial funds or 

disbursements in 2013, including those 

earmarked for veterans assistance, 

services or programs. 

The City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, 

etc.) is sustained. The City is to 

produce DOCUMENT(s) showing the 

CITY’S agreement to not discriminate 

while administering federal financial 

funds or disbursements in 2013 

earmarked for veterans assistance, 

services or programs. 

41 DOCUMENT(s) between the federal 

government and the CITY from January 

1, 2007 to the present CONCERNING 

any oral or written report, allegation, 

charge, or complaint (regardless of how 

the CITY characterizes the report, 

suggestion, allegation, charge or 

complaint) that the CITY may have been 

or was discriminating while administering 

federal financial funds or disbursements, 

including without limitation funds for 

veterans assistance, services or programs. 

City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained. City is to produce 

DOCUMENT(s) between the federal 

government and the CITY from 2013 

CONCERNING any oral or written 

report, allegation, charge, or complaint 

(regardless of how the CITY 

characterizes the report, suggestion, 

allegation, charge or complaint) that 

the CITY may have been or was 

discriminating while administering 

federal financial funds or 

disbursements for veterans assistance, 

services or programs. 

42 All DOCUMENTS that show that the 

CITY was informed or knew that it 

must comply with federal nondiscrimination requirements as a 

condition for receiving federal funding or 

City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled. 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 16 of 17
 17 

14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

No. Language of Amended Request Ruling on request-specific 

objections that request is overly 

broad, oppressive, burdensome, and 

seeks material not relevant to any 

claim or defense 

federal disbursements of money for 

veterans’ assistance, services or programs 

in 2012-2013. 

44 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the 

August 2013 Department of Fair 

Employment and Housing’s complaint 

against the CITY, including but not 

limited to DOCUMENTS that show that 

the CITY failed to provide sex 

harassment prevention training, or sex 

discrimination prevention training, to its 

supervisory employees, including elected 

and appointed officials. 

City’s Objection 3 (overly broad, etc.) 

is overruled. 

47 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or 

which support CITY attorney Jan 

Goldsmith’s statements to Tony Perry of 

the Los Angeles Times that Mayor 

FILNER needed therapy in February 

2013. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained only to the extent the 

request seeks documents concerning a 

need for therapy if specifically and 

clearly unrelated to issues of sexual 

harassment and/or sexual 

discrimination. 

48 All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or 

which support the CITY or CITY 

attorney Jan Goldsmith’s decision to hire 

a psychologist to render an opinion about 

FILNER, and a copy of the 

psychologist’s report. 

City’s Objection 2 (overly broad, etc.) 

is sustained only to the extent the 

request seeks documents concerning a 

need for a psychological report if 

specifically and clearly unrelated to 

issues of sexual harassment and/or 

sexual discrimination. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 29, 2015 

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 139 Filed 04/29/15 Page 17 of 17