Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02992/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02992-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARISELA LOZANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

(Re: Docket No. 86)

Plaintiff Marisela Lozano moves to compel amended discovery responses from Defendant 

County of Santa Clara.

1

 This discovery focuses on whether any of the Eligibility Worker training 

that Santa Clara contends that she must complete before returning to work has been validated 

within the meaning of the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.2 

Lozano argues that whether the training has been UGESP-validated is relevant to a disparate 

impact theory of disability discrimination.3 But at oral argument earlier today, Lozano admitted 

that the complaint does not plead facts giving rise to a discrimination claim based on disparate 

impact, because the disparate impact theory arose during the course of discovery and she has not 

yet amended her complaint to include it.

4

 

 

1

See Docket No. 86.

2

See id. at 4-11.

3

See id.

4

See Docket No. 91.

Case 5:14-cv-02992-EJD Document 92 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-02992-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

With all the attention paid to the recent amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) regarding 

proportionality, one might reasonably forget that relevance remains, well, relevant. Put simply, 

parties must still limit their discovery to claims and defenses at issue in the case. Unless and until 

Lozano amends her complaint, the UGESP discovery she seeks simply is not relevant to her 

claims. Lozano’s motion to compel is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02992-EJD Document 92 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2