Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01179/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01179-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Michelle Tyler, et al., Civil

No.

14cv1179-GPC (JLB)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF

PROTECTIVE ORDERS

[ECF No. 46]

v.

City of San Diego, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant City of San Diego’s Motion

for Protective Orders (ECF No. 46). Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF

No. 46) and supporting declaration (ECF No. 46-1), Defendant City of San Diego’s

Opposition (ECF No. 49), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 50) and supporting

declaration (ECF No. 50-1), the Court issues this order modifying its December 17,

2014 Order pursuant to its inherent power to reconsider its own orders. See City of

Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886-87 (9th

Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED IN PART 1

AND DENIED IN PART as follows.

Because the Court is relying on its inherent power, the Court need not

1

address Defendant’s arguments that reconsideration is not authorized under the

Federal Rules.

1 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 7
 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. Limitation of Discovery Production Based Upon Gender of Victim

Plaintiffs correctly point out that men as well as women can be victims of

sexual harassment and sexual battery. Although the Plaintiffs have neither made

allegations nor put forward evidence that Mr. Filner sexually harassed or sexually

battered men, if the City has evidence of such, it could be relevant in this case. As

such, the Court finds it to be appropriate and within the interest of justice to strike

the limitation as to the gender of alleged victims from the December 17, 2014

Order.

2. Limitation to Complaints Against Filner and Limitations to Time

Plaintiffs urge that discovery should not be limited to the period prior to the

alleged incident (June 11, 2013) but should continue forward in time because,

Plaintiffs assert, the incident with Mr. Filner continued to impact Plaintiffs’ ability

and willingness to seek city services after June 11, 2013. In light of this

explanation and finding no undue burden, the Court concludes that it is in the

interests of justice to expand the period of discovery for the Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure topics through the remainder of Mr. Filner’s tenure with the City, that is,

through August 2013.

2

Plaintiffs also assert in their Motion for Reconsideration that they should be

able to depose the City as to all allegations of sex discrimination against “city

supervisory employees, including elected and appointed officials.” Yet, Plaintiffs

fail to provide an explanation, argument or relevant authority for this assertion. The

Court finds no merit to this assertion.

First of all, with the exception of Topics 20 and 21, all of the relevant topics

in Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice (Topics 1-18) were limited by the Plaintiffs to

allegations about Mr. Filner. Only Topics 20 and 21 address allegations not limited

The Court modifies its previous order on this basis, in spite of the fact

2

that the pre-June 11, 2013 limitation came from Plaintiffs’ own 30(b)(6) notice, and

nearly all of the topics in Plaintiffs’ notice (Topics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15 and 18) contained that time limitation.

2 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 7
 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

to Mr. Filner, and both are clearly overbroad in this respect. Topic 20 compels the

30(b)(6) witness to address, among other things, any allegations (or even

“suggestions”) of the City or any of its employees or agents engaging in sexual

harassment or sex discrimination while disbursing or administering federal funds,

without limit as to time. (Emphasis added.) Topic 21 compels the 30(b)(6) witness

to address all allegations (or even “suggestions”) of sex harassment and sex

discrimination “against the CITY” in the past ten years. (Emphasis added.) It also

compels the witness to be prepared to address all documents that relate to any

allegation (or even “suggestion”) of sex harassment and or sex discrimination

“made by any CITY employee, independent contractor, representative, volunteer,

constituent or agent” without limit as to time. (Emphasis added.) 3

Second, the undue burden that would be placed on the City and the limited

nature of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint weigh against the discovery

sought. Plaintiffs are not employees of the City, but rather are constituents who

allege that Ms. Tyler was sexually harassed by then-Mayor Filner, an elected

official. The Complaint asserts liability of the City for sexual harassment (in the

Second Cause of Action) and sexual discrimination (in the Fifth Cause of Action)

due the City’s alleged failure to train, supervise and discipline Mr. Filner and its

alleged failure to warn and protect the Plaintiffs. The Complaint does not allege

broader failures on the part of the City.

This is an atypical sexual harassment/sex discrimination case in a number of

ways, but in particular because Mr. Filner was, at the relevant times, an elected

official. Plaintiffs have not alleged, for example, that other City employees,

including supervisory employees, engaged in sexual harassment or sex

discrimination. The Court concludes that, under these circumstances, the burden of

Although Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration asserts that the Court

3

should permit discovery of harassment by “city supervisory employees, including

elected and appointed officials,” Topics 1-18 do not request that, and Topics 20 and

21 as drafted by Plaintiffs are far broader than that. 

3 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 7
 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

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the

case. Plaintiffs’ deposition topics are overbroad and unduly burdensome to the

extent they seek discovery s into allegations of sex discrimination and sex

harassment leveled against employees of the City other than Mr. Filner. 

3. The DFEH Agreement

Plaintiffs explain, in their Motion for Reconsideration, that the DFEH

agreement referenced in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice is a settlement agreement entered

into by the City resolving allegations by DFEH that the City failed to train Mr.

Filner and other supervisory employees. Based upon this explanation, the Court

concludes that it is appropriate and in the interests of justice to modify its prior

Order to include this as a proper 30(b)(6) topic.

4. Section 1983 Discovery, Discrimination While Disbursing Federal

Funds, and Other Veterans

The Court had determined that some language within Plaintiffs’ Topic 20

was argumentative and harassing, not intended to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence, and not appropriate for a 30(b)(6) topic. Plaintiffs included

language such as: “whether the City knew in 2013 knew it could not sexually

harass”; whether Bob Filner “had any meetings with any male veterans” and

whether male veterans “were required to go on dates with Filner, be seen in public

with Filner or go to dinner with Filner.” The Court continues to find these portions

of Plaintiffs’ topics improper. Other parts of Topic 20 were unduly burdensome

such as “whether the CITY provided any veteran services or assistance to any males

in 2013 and, if so, the full identity of those males and what occurred and when.”

The Court, in its previous order, found that the City should prepare a witness

to testify as to:

information known or reasonably available to the City regarding its

2012 to August 2013 veterans services and assistance, including

funding, financial assistance, and contracts.

/ / /

4 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 4 of 7
 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

Thus, Plaintiffs are not precluded from obtaining appropriate discovery necessary to

support their § 1983 claim. The Court declines to revisit its prior Order in this

regard.

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT paragraph

4 of the Court’s December 17, 2014 order (ECF No. 42) addressing the appropriate

topics of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant City of San Diego is

MODIFIED as follows:

4. Defendant’s request for an order precluding or limiting the

scope of the noticed Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant City of

San Diego is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs

served a deposition notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) that seeks

Defendant City of San Diego’s testimony on 21 listed topics. The Court

concludes that each of the 21 topics is overbroad and unduly burdensome as

written. However, the topics are relevant to Plaintiffs’ equal protection

claim against the City of San Diego. Thus, the Court ORDERS that the Fed.

R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition may go forward on the noticed topics as

narrowed by the Court below:

a. Topics 1-17 (Knowledge of misconduct): These topics

are limited to the City of San Diego’s knowledge through August

2013, concerning Defendant Filner’s actual or alleged sexual

harassment, requests for sexual favors, or his written, verbal, or

physical conduct of a sexual nature, and any response of the City

thereto.

b. Topic 18 (Documents maintained; Dates and identity of

victims’ complaints and recipients of complaints about Filner;

Investigation into Plaintiffs’ complaints): In addition to being

overbroad and unduly burdensome, this topic is compound. The

City should prepare its designee on documents maintained and

information known or reasonably available to the City regarding

5 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 7
 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

2012 to August 2013 complaints about Defendant Filner’s actual or

alleged sexual harassment, requests for sexual favors, or his written,

verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. As with any topic,

the deponent may produce and/or utilize documents to assist with

testimony on this topic. The City should also prepare its designee

on the City’s investigation into complaints made by plaintiffs

(without waiving or revealing privileged communications or

attorney work product).

c. Topic 19 (Sex harassment and sex discrimination

policy(s) for past 10 years; Training of employees; Persons

responsible for training; City’s 12/2013 agreement with FEHA): In

addition to being overbroad and unduly burdensome, this topic is

compound. Further, this topic seeks irrelevant information about the

FEHA agreement. The City should prepare a designee on

information known or reasonably available to the City regarding

2012 to August 2013 (i) sex harassment and sex discrimination

policy(s), (ii) sex harassment and sex discrimination prevention

training policy(s), (iii) training or materials provided to Filner or

other supervisory employees regarding sex harassment and sex

discrimination, and (iv) persons responsible for sex harassment and

sex discrimination prevention training and compliance. The City

should further prepare a designee on the City’s 2013 agreement with

FEHA and any non-privileged communications related to that

agreement.

d. Topic 20 (City veteran assistance or services for 2011-

2013; Funding and financial assistance and federal contracts for

veterans services and assistance; Whether City knew it could not

sexually harass; Whether Filner met with male veterans and required

dates in exchange for veterans services): In addition to being

6 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 6 of 7
 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

overbroad and unduly burdensome, this topic is compound and

argumentative (as to having a witness testify as to whether the City

knew it could not harass). The City should prepare its designee on

information known or reasonably available to the City regarding its

2012 to August 2013 veterans services and assistance, including

funding, financial assistance, and contracts.

e. Topic 21 (All complaints of sex harassment and

discrimination): In addition to being overbroad and unduly

burdensome, this topic is duplicative of the areas of inquiry set forth

in Topics 1-19. The City is not required to prepare a witness on this

topic.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2015

_________________________

JILL L. BURKHARDT

United States Magistrate Judge

7 14cv1179

Case 3:14-cv-01179-GPC-JLB Document 59 Filed 02/03/15 Page 7 of 7