Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01682/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01682-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Youssef Shapour
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUSSEF SHAPOUR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of 

Transportation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-cv-01682-BAM

ORDER VACATING HEARING OF 

FEBRUARY 26, 2016

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO 

PREVENT PLAINTIFF FROM CALLING 

DIRECTOR MALCOM DOUGHERTY AT 

TRIAL

(Doc. 53)

On January 27, 2016, Defendant State of California, Department of Transportation 

(“Defendant”), filed a motion for protective order to prevent Plaintiff from calling Malcolm 

Dougherty, the Director of the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), as a witness at trial.1 

Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition.2 

The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without the necessity of oral argument 

and the hearing scheduled for February 26, 2016, is HEREBY VACATED. The motion is 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(g). 

 

1 Defendant also filed an ex parte application to seal exhibits A-E in support of the motion. Doc. 57. By separate 

order, the Court has granted the application to seal. 

2 At the motion in limine hearing held in this matter on February 22, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that he 

had not filed an opposition to the motion for protective order and did not intend to file any such opposition. 

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 75 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

I. Background

At the time of the events detailed in Plaintiff’s complaint, Director Dougherty was the 

District Director for District 6 which includes Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern counties. 

In his capacity as Director of District 6, Director Dougherty was involved in projects occurring 

throughout the Caltrans Central Region which also encompasses District 5 (Santa Cruz, San 

Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties), District 10 (Alpine, Amador, 

Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and Mariposa Counties) and District 9 

(Mono and Inyo Counties). (Doc. 53 at 2). 

Plaintiff worked in the Materials Testing Laboratory in Fresno under the supervision of 

Margaret Shaeffer. Ms. Shaeffer reported to Robert James, a supervising transportation 

engineer. Mr. James reported to Mark Der Matoian, the Chief of Construction for the Central 

Region. Mr. Der Matoian reported to Director Dougherty when he was the District Director. 

Director Dougherty never worked directly with Plaintiff. 

During the course of discovery Mr. Dougherty was not identified as a percipient witness, 

complainant or respondent in any of the Equal Employment Opportunity Program claims 

involving the employees of the Materials Testing Lab. Mr. Dougherty received informational 

memoranda from the Discrimination Complaint Investigation Unit (DCIU), based in Sacramento, 

and outside his chain of command (until his appointment as Director). When DCIU complaints 

were not substantiated, Mr. Dougherty received notices of case closure and no further action was 

taken. When DCIU investigations substantiated claims, Mr. Dougherty was also notified of those 

findings and corrective action was taken by the offending employee’s supervisor in consultation 

with the district’s administration. Mr. Dougherty then signed off on an informational 

memorandum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Program indicating that corrective action 

was taken. Additionally, at his deposition, Plaintiff reportedly identified Director Dougherty as a 

cc recipient of an e-mail sent on October 30, 2008. 

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 611 provides that “[t]he court should exercise reasonable 

control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) 

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 75 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect 

witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” Fed. R. Evid. 611. 

Defendant argues that if the Plaintiff’s purpose is to determine the truth, it would be more 

effective to question witnesses who have personal knowledge of the events described, “rather 

than harass an appointee who was a cc recipient of a rambling e-mail.” Doc. 53 at 4. Defendant 

indicates that Plaintiff can provide testimony regarding his own e-mail, which does not allege 

any act of retaliation against Plaintiff or by Director Dougherty. Defendant further reports that 

Director Dougherty was not involved in the process of investigating Plaintiff’s complaints. Per 

Defendant, Director Dougherty’s only involvement in any investigations by the Discrimination 

Complaint Investigation Unit in Sacramento included (1) receipt of notices of case closures; and 

(2) transmittal of a notice of corrective taken by the employee’s second line supervisor. Doc. 53 

at 5. Defendant contends that Director Dougherty should not be compelled to testify absent 

extraordinary circumstances. 

As noted, Plaintiff does not object to the motion. Given the lack of opposition, the Court 

finds a protective order warranted to preclude Plaintiff from calling Director Dougherty as a 

witness at trial. It appears that Director Dougherty was not involved in the events at issue in this 

action with the possible exception to his receipt of an e-mail and other reports regarding 

complaint investigations and protective actions. There is no indication that Director Dougherty’s 

testimony would be other than cumulative or indirect evidence. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Defendant’s motion for protective order to prevent Plaintiff from 

calling Director Malcolm Dougherty at trial is HEREBY GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01682-BAM Document 75 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 3