Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01825/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 07CV1825 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-1825-IEG(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(DOC. # 14, DOC # 16)

On September 17, and October 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed Motions

for Protective Order Re: Defendant’s Subpoenas For Employment

Records. On October 31, 2008, Defendant filed an Opposition to the

Motions. On November 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the

Opposition.

The Court, having reviewed the subpoenas, Motions, Opposition

and Reply, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motions.

Background

On August 25, 2008, Defendant issued subpoenas to Charging

Party Wendy Santamaria’s (hereafter “Santamaria”) former 

Case 3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 6
 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 07CV1825 

employers (Army & Navy Academy, Oceanside Unified School District,

San Dieguito Unified School District and San Marcos Unified School

District)(“Unified School District” hereafter “USD”) seeking:

All documents and records, including but not 

limited to, employment, earnings, payroll, 

applications for employment, work absence records, 

incident reports, pre-employment exam records, 

and employee progress records pertaining to the 

employment of Plaintiff ...

On September 22, 2008, Defendant issued an identical subpoena

to Santamaria’s current employer, the Coronado USD.

Plaintiff does not appear to have objected to the subpoenas

but now seeks a protective order compelling Defendant to withdraw

the subpoenas. Plaintiff also seeks an order that Defendant be

precluded from using in this litigation, or for any other purpose,

any documents it has already received pursuant to the subpoenas, and

that such documents be turned over to Plaintiff. Defendant opposes

Plaintiff’s Motions.

Most of The Records Sought By the Subpoenas are Irrelevant; The

Requests for the Records Are Overbroad

Plaintiff argues that the documents requested by the

subpoenas are overbroad and irrelevant to this action. Defendant

argues that the documents requested by the subpoenas are not

annoying, harassing, embarrassing or oppressive.

As noted above, the subpoenas seek all documents and records

of Santamaria pertaining to her earnings, pre-employment exams,

applications for employment, absences, and incidents. None of these

documents appear to be relevant to any party’s claim or defense in

this litigation. Nor do such records appear reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 6
 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

3 07CV1825 

26(b)(1). Moreover, the requests are overbroad in they seek “all”

documents that have no relevance to any claim or defense in this

litigation. Defendant does not provide any argument to the

contrary.

To the extent that the subpoenas request all documents and

records pertaining to Santamaria’s earnings, pre-employment exams,

applications for employment, absences and incidents, the subpoenas

seek documents that are irrelevant to any claim or defense in this

action and are overbroad. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Protective Order in this regard is GRANTED.

Employee Progress Reports

The subpoenas also request production of Santamaria’s

previous employers’ employee progress reports. The Court interprets

Defendant’s subpoenas to be directed to Santamaria’s performance

evaluations. Employee progress reports and performance evaluations

may be relevant for impeachment purposes, as well as to support

Defendant’s argument that its decision not to hire Santamaria was

credible, non-discriminatory and non-prextual.

However, Defendant has not included any time restrictions in

the subpoenas. As a result, production of documents pursuant to the

existing subpoenas may yield documents that are dated too remote in

time to be of any meaningful relevance to any claim or defense in

this litigation.

The failure to include time restrictions in the subpoenas

makes them overbroad. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Protective Order in this regard is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part. 

Defendant shall withdraw the issued subpoenas. Defendant may

Case 3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 6
 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 Some of the documents received from the San Marcos USD may provide

evidence that could impeach Santamaria’s deposition testimony.

Defendant also states that it has “extensively questioned Ms.

Santamaria during her deposition about her current work performance

at Coronado and her past work performance at all of her previous

school employers. Ms. Santamaria answered questions about her

successes and failures and reasons for leaving each job.”

(Defendant’s Notice of Errata, filed Nov. 3, 2008.) However, unlike

with the documents received from the San Marcos USD, Defendant fails

to show how documents received from Santamaria’s previous employers

might impeach Santamaria’s deposition testimony.

4 07CV1825 

re-issue subpoenas to Santamaria’s previous employers to obtain only

her progress reports and performance evaluations dated from March

2002 to March 2006. Any such documents shall be produced to the

Court and held until a protective order to be drafted by counsel is

prepared and approved by the Court.

Documents Already Produced

Defendant has already received documents pursuant to the

subpoena issued to the San Marcos USD.1 Some of those documents,

cited in Defendant’s Opposition, are dated February 1996. Those

documents are too remote in time to be of any meaningful relevance

in this litigation. Therefore, Defendant shall turn over to

Plaintiff all documents received by it from the San Marcos USD, or

any other documents received from a subpoenaed third party which are

not progress reports or performance evaluations and are dated prior

to March 2002. All documents turned over to Plaintiff shall be

retained by Plaintiff. Absent further order of the Court, these

documents shall not be used at trial of this matter, or for any

other purpose.

Plaintiff’s Motion also alludes to the possibility that

Defendant may have also received documents pursuant to the subpoena

issued to Santamaria’s current employer, the Coronado USD. To the

extent that documents have been received from the Coronado USD, and

contain Santamaria’s performance reviews, they are relevant for

Case 3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/17/08 Page 4 of 6
 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

5 07CV1825 

purposes of impeachment and to support Defendant’s argument that its

decision not to hire Santamaria was credible, non-discriminatory and

non-pretextual. However, to the extent that the documents produced

by the Coronado USD are not Santamaria’s progress reports or

performance evaluations, those documents are irrelevant to any claim

or defense in this litigation and shall be turned over to Plaintiff.

All documents turned over to Plaintiff shall be retained by

Plaintiff. Absent further order of the Court, these documents shall

not be used at trial of this matter, or for any other purpose. If

there is any question regarding the nature of any such documents,

they shall be delivered to the Court for in camera review. Any such

Coronado USD documents ultimately produced or retained by Defendant

are subject to the protective order discussed above.

Conclusion

The Court, having reviewed the subpoenas issued by Defendant,

Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant’s Opposition and Plaintiff’s Reply,

HEREBY GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motions for

Protective Order.

1. The subpoenas issued to the Charging Party’s previous

employers seek information that is not relevant to any claim or

defense in this litigation and are overbroad. Therefore, the

subpoenas shall be withdrawn.

2. The only documents sought by the subpoenas that may have

any relevance to a claim or defense in this litigation are the

Charging Party’s progress reports or performance evaluations dated

from March 2002 to March 2006.

3. Any documents received by Defendant from the San Marcos

USD are not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation,

Case 3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/17/08 Page 5 of 6
 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

6 07CV1825 

shall be turned over to Plaintiff. All documents turned over to

Plaintiff shall be retained by Plaintiff. Absent further order of

the Court, these documents shall not be used at trial of this

matter, or for any other purpose.

4. The documents received by Defendant from the Coronado USD

are only relevant to this litigation to the extent that they are

progress reports or performance evaluations. All other documents

produced by the Coronado USD are not relevant to any claim or

defense in this litigation shall be turned over to Plaintiff. All

documents turned over to Plaintiff shall be retained by Plaintiff.

Absent further order of the Court, these documents shall not be used

at trial of this matter, or for any other purpose.

5. Defendant may re-issue subpoenas to the Charging Party’s

previous employers to obtain only her progress reports and performance evaluations dated from March 2002 to March 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01825-IEG-NLS Document 21 Filed 11/17/08 Page 6 of 6