Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01552-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Civil Rights Department
Plaintiff
Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.
Defendant
Grimmway Farms
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, an 

agency of the State of California, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., 

d.b.a. GRIMMWAY FARMS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-01552 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint statement regarding discovery 

disagreement, ECF No. 79, which the court construes as a motion to compel brought by 

defendant. See ECF Nos. 76, 68 (minute orders permitting limited discovery motions beyond the 

discovery deadline to be filed no later than July 1, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, the 

motion to is DENIED. 

I. Introduction 

The Civil Rights Department (“CRD”) is a state agency charged with, among other things, 

investigating and prosecuting alleged violations of California’s anti-discrimination laws, 

including the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). CRD alleges that it also has 

authority to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

(“ADA”) in California. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12930 et seq. On August 30, 2021, the CRD filed 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 11
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 

a civil rights complaint on behalf of “itself in the public interest and all aggrieved disabled 

employees” for alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stemming from Grimmway’s alleged failure to engage in 

the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees. ECF No. 

1. CRD’s Complaint seeks remedies for all aggrieved employees. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 25; Prayer for 

Relief ¶ 3. Grimmway’s Answer (“Answer”) asserts forty-four Affirmative Defenses. ECF No. 

4. 

II. Applicable Law 

The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(1). The current Rule states: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as 

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation “has 

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Relevance, however, does not establish discoverability; in 

2015, a proportionality requirement was added to Rule 26. Under the amended Rule 26, 

relevance alone will not justify discovery; discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the 

case. 

A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 

proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 

of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 11
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 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or boilerplate objections, 

without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an objection or 

privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. V. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 

1142, 1149 (9th Cir.2005). 

III. Motion 

The joint statement seeks a ruling on the adequacy of plaintiff’s responses to certain 

requests for admission (RFAs) and corresponding interrogatories. ECF No. 79 at 2. The disputed 

topics fall into three categories. Each topic is addressed separately below. 

IV. Discussion 

A. Pre-Dispute Resolution Related Discovery 

The first category concerns requests for admission and interrogatories which ask CRD to 

admit that the pre-suit dispute resolution (as set forth in California Government Code § 12965) 

did not “include or involve” certain unlawful employment practices that CRD asserts in this 

action (RFAs 3-9 and Interrogatories 3-9). ECF No. 79 at 2. Examples of these RFAs and 

interrogatories are as follows: 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 

Plaintiff Civil Rights Department’s Supplemental Responses to 

Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One, that was served on or around 

January 12, 2024, that GEI engaged in a pattern or practice of 

“[a]llowing supervisors to determine whether an employee could be 

accommodated on a permanent basis without including the 

employees in that determination,” admit that the MANDATORY 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION did not include or involve said alleged 

pattern or practice. (For purposes of this set of Requests for 

Admission, the term “MANDATORY DISPUTE RESOLUTION” 

means and refers to the mandatory dispute resolution that YOU and 

GEI engaged in prior to the filing of the ACTION, as required by 

California Government Code Section 12965, and as set forth in 

Paragraph 16 of YOUR COMPLAINT.) 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 

CRD incorporates the Preliminary Statement as though fully set forth 

herein. CRD objects that this request is vague as to the phrase 

“include or involve.” CRD further objects to this request because it 

seeks information that is not relevant or material to the subject of this 

action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence as pre-suit conciliation is not required by 

California Government Code Section 12965. See Cal. Gov’t Code, 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 11
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 

4 

§ 12965, subd. (a)(1) (“the director in the director’s discretion may 

bring a civil action” after conciliation and mediation fail, “or in 

advance thereof if circumstances warrant.”); Dep’t. Fair Empl. & 

Hous. v. Law Schl. Admission Council, Inc., 896 F.Supp.2d 849, 864 

(N.D. Cal. 2012) (both “the California Court of Appeal and the Fair 

Employment and Housing Commission have confirmed that 

conciliation under FEHA is not a condition precedent to filing suit.”); 

see also Dep’t of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems, 

Inc. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 93, 101, 104 (the Legislature “gave 

[CRD] broad powers to investigate employment discrimination 

complaints and bring civil actions against violators when 

necessary”); Motors Ins. Corp. v. Div. of Fair Employment Practices, 

118 Cal.App.3d 209, 224 (1981) (CRD can file a written accusation 

“even if it has not obtained optimum results from ... its efforts at 

conciliation”) 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 

If CRD’s response to Request for Admission No. 3 set forth in 

Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Civil Rights Department, Set 

One, propounded by GEI on May 10, 2024, was not an unqualified 

admission, state all facts upon which CRD bases said response. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 

CRD incorporates the Preliminary Statement as though fully set forth 

herein. CRD did not respond to Request for Admission No. 3 based 

on the objections set forth in its response, which are incorporated as 

though fully set forth herein. Accordingly, there is no further 

response to this interrogatory. 

Grimmway argues that CRD should be compelled to respond to discovery seeking 

information about the pre-litigation mediation process because California Government Code 

Section 12965 requires, as a precondition to suit, that the parties engage in the “mandatory 

dispute resolution process” and it is Grimmway’s “position that CRD has failed to comply with 

this express pre-requisite because the parties’ prior conciliation and mediation efforts did not 

involve the unlawful employment practices that CRD only recently disclosed to [Grimmway] in 

this action.” ECF No. 79 at 14. CRD, in response, contends Grimmway “has not met its 

preliminary burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) of showing why communications made during a 

private pre-suit mediation are relevant to any claim or defense of [Grimmway].” Id. at 21. CRD 

contends this is the case because (1) “[Grimmway] waived any compliance argument with respect 

to California Government Code section 12965, subdivision (a) by singing a stipulation that the 

mediation satisfied any statutory ‘pre-suit conciliation provisions’” and (2) [Grimmway’s] claim 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 4 of 11
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 

that pre-suit mediation is mandatory is incorrect as a matter of law, as state and federal courts 

have recognized.” 

 Without reaching the issues of privilege or waiver, the court finds that the motion to 

compel must be denied as to this category of discovery on relevance grounds; the topics covered 

in pre-suit conciliation efforts are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case because presuit conciliation is not an absolute pre-requisite to suit. The Fair Employment and Housing Act 

directs CRD, prior to filing a civil action, to “require all parties to participate in mandatory 

dispute resolution in the department’s internal dispute resolution division . . . in an effort to 

resolve the dispute without litigation.” Cal. Gov’t Code, § 12965(a)(2). However, this is not an 

absolute condition precedent to CRD’s authority to file a civil action, as expressed by the plain 

language of the statute and supporting case law. California Government Code Section 

12965(a)(1) plainly states that “[i]n the case of failure to eliminate an unlawful practice under this 

part through conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion, or in advance thereof if 

circumstances warrant, the director in the director’s discretion may bring a civil action in the 

name of the department.” Id. (emphasis added). 

The court notes that section 12963.7, the subsection of the statute entitled “Elimination of 

unlawful employment practice by conference, conciliation and persuasion; confidentiality; 

disclosure as misdemeanor,” requires the agency, upon determining that an administrative 

complaint is valid, to “immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful ... practice complained of 

by conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12963.7 (emphasis added). 

Courts have evaluated this language and found that “[t]he use of the permissive word endeavor in 

§ 12963.7, on its face, undercuts any reading of this section that would impose conciliation as a 

necessary prerequisite.” Dep’t of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. L. Sch. Admission Council Inc., 

896 F. Supp. 2d 849, 864 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“[T]he California Court of Appeal and Housing 

Commission have confirmed that conciliation under FEHA is not a condition precedent to filing 

suit); see also Motors Ins. Corp. v. Div. of Fair Employment Practices, 118 Cal.App.3d 209, 224 

(1981) (DFEH is able “to file an accusation within the statutorily prescribed time even if it has 

not obtained optimum results from its investigation or its efforts at conciliation”). 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 5 of 11
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 

Based on the foregoing, defendant has not met its initial burden to demonstrate that this 

discovery is relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this case. Thus, the motion to compel is 

denied on this point. 

B. Discovery Regarding Whether Employees are “Interested in Returning to Work” 

The second issue presented in the joint statement is whether CRD is required to provide a 

further response to RFA 13 and related Interrogatory 13, which ask CRD whether certain listed 

employes were “interested in returning to work” during the time period at issue. The discovery 

requests read as follows. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 

Admit that the following individuals who were employed by GEI 

during the TIME PERIOD and who were referred to GEI’s Employee 

Relations Supervisor, Rocio Ramirez, but were not interested in 

returning to work with GEI during the TIME PERIOD, are not 

members of the GROUP on whose behalf YOU seek relief in this 

ACTION: (017344), . . . [list of employee numbers] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 

CRD incorporates the Preliminary Statement as though fully set forth 

herein. CRD objects that this request is vague as to the undefined 

phrase “not interested in returning to work,” and the phrase cannot 

be defined for the purposes of CRD’s response because the phrase is 

intrinsically and incurably subjective as well as speculative. CRD 

further objects that this request is vague as to the word “relief.” CRD 

is seeking both monetary and injunctive relief in this litigation, on 

behalf of itself and all aggrieved group members. For the purposes 

of responding to this Request for Admission No. 13, however, and 

without waiving its right to pursue injunctive relief on its own behalf 

and on behalf of all group members, CRD defines “relief” as 

monetary damages only. CRD further objects because the request is 

compound and conjunctive; it is not set forth simply and directly so 

as to permit a simple admission or denial. Although the request seeks 

an admission regarding an ultimate issue (i.e., whether certain 

individuals are members of a group on whose behalf CRD seeks 

relief), the request contains embedded factual predicates – the 

individuals having been i) employed by Grimmway; ii) during the 

time period; iii) and who were referred to Rocio Ramirez, iv) but 

were “not interested in returning to work.” As such, the request is 

objectionable because the ultimate factual issue cannot be admitted 

or denied without also assuming the truth and accuracy of each 

embedded factual predicate incorporated within the request. The 

compound nature of the request also results in Grimmway having 

exceeded the number of requests agreed upon by the Parties and 

ordered by the Court. 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 6 of 11
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 

7 

CRD also objects on the grounds of privacy to the extent that the 

request seeks information pertaining to individuals, the disclosure of 

which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the affected 

individuals’ constitutional, statutory, and/or common law rights to 

personal privacy and confidentiality, including the right to privacy 

under the California Constitution and the penumbral right to privacy 

under the U.S. Constitution and any other state or federal law. CRD 

further objects to the request because it seeks information protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, the 

common interest doctrine, and/or because it seeks the impressions, 

conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories of attorneys. CRD 

objects that this request seeks information protected by deliberative 

process, official information, informant privileges, as well the plain 

language of the statutory mandate to hold confidential information 

obtained by CRD in the regular performance of its duties. CRD 

further objects to this request because it seeks information in the 

possession of, known to, or otherwise equally available to Defendant 

(i.e., the employees’ “interactive process leave of absence” files.) 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, definitions, 

and limitations, and based on CRD’s present knowledge and 

information which does not include the review or analysis of 

documents still to be produced by Defendant and/or experts, the CRD 

responds as follows: Upon reasonable inquiry and the information 

known or readily available to CRD at the time of this response, CRD 

has insufficient information to admit or deny this request for the 

reasons set forth in the corresponding Interrogatory, Set 3, No. 13. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 

If CRD’s response to Request for Admission No. 13 set forth in 

Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Civil Rights Department, Set 

One, propounded by GEI on May 10, 2024, was not an unqualified 

admission, state all facts upon which CRD bases said response. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 

CRD incorporates the Preliminary Statement as though fully set forth 

herein. CRD also incorporates its objections to Response to Request 

for Admission No. 13, as though fully set forth herein. CRD further 

objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome 

insofar as it seeks “all facts” upon which CRD based its response. 

Without waiving the foregoing objections, and limiting its response 

to the material facts supporting its Request for Admission 

Response(s), CRD answers as follows: 

CRD has insufficient information to admit or deny this request 

because the information known or readily available to CRD in the IP 

files is inconclusive as to whether or not an individual employee was 

“interested in returning to work.” CRD is not a witness in this 

litigation and cannot testify as to the subjective mental state of 

Grimmway employees throughout the interactive process with Rocio 

Ramirez. Indeed, the real-parties-in-interest Ruben Ramirez 

(763731) and Emiliano Navarro Rosales (777233) (both included in 

Grimmway’s list of employees presumptively “not interested” in 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 7 of 11
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 

8 

returning to work) voluntarily resigned from their employment with 

Grimmway during the interactive process but in fact were interested 

in returning to work. 

 Grimmway posits that CRD’s contention that it does not have sufficient information to 

admit or deny the RFA is “evasive and noncompliant,” and that the term “interested in returning 

to work” is not ambiguous. ECF No. 79 at 18. Grimmway asks the court to compel an admission 

from CRD with respect to “employees for whom CRD has no reasonable basis to conclude an 

interest in returning to work.” Id. The court agrees with CRD that it responded appropriately; 

even if CRD has “no reasonable basis” to conclude that an individual was interested in returning 

to work, CRD still could not be certain of any individual’s subjective intent not to return to work 

unless it had contemporaneous information, such as a note in a text message or document, that an 

induvial was affirmatively not interested in returning to work. CRD explains that it reviewed the 

relevant “documents and information contained in the Interactive Process (IP) files that 

[Grimmway] produced in connection with each individual, CRD was unable to agree with the 

premise that these individuals were not interested in returning to work with [Grimmway.]” ECF 

No. 79 at 24. CRD offered to revise its answer if Grimmway could provide an objective 

definition of “interested in returning to work,” which Grimmway did not do. Id. at 24. 

CRD’s response complies with the Rules and is adequate; CRD cannot be required to 

speculate as to individual subjective mindsets – mindsets which may vary and change even over a 

limited time period. The motion to compel is denied on this point. 

C. Discovery Regarding Number of People Affected by Policy 

The final substantive topic at issue in the joint statement centers on RFA 16 and 

Interrogatory 16. The RFA asks CRD to admit that a particular policy or practice “affected” 

fewer than 20 employees. The discovery at issue read as follows. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 

With respect to the allegation in YOUR Supplemental Response to 

Interrogatory No. 2 set forth in Plaintiff Civil Rights Department’s 

Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One, 

that was served on or around January 12, 2024, that GEI engaged in 

a pattern or practice of “[r]equiring individuals with disability to 

compete for open positions, rather than having a policy or practice of 

giving individuals with disabilities preference in hiring for vacant 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 8 of 11
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 

9 

positions that would accommodate the employee, effectively 

denying them accommodation when they were not hired,” admit that 

such alleged pattern or practice affected less than 20 employees of 

GEI during the TIME PERIOD. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 

CRD incorporates the Preliminary Statement as though fully set forth 

herein. CRD objects to this request because it seeks information that 

is not relevant or material to the subject of this action and is not 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. CRD also objects that this request is vague as to the phrase 

“affected.” For the purposes of responding to this Request for 

Admission No. 16, CRD defines “affected” to mean “damaged” in 

the sense of monetary damages. CRD also objects on the grounds of 

privacy to the extent that the request seeks information pertaining to 

individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of the affected individuals’ constitutional, statutory, and/or 

common law rights to personal privacy and confidentiality, including 

the right to privacy under the California Constitution and the 

penumbral right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution and any other 

state or federal law. CRD further objects to the request because it 

seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney 

work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, and/or because 

it seeks the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or 

theories of attorneys. CRD objects that this request seeks information 

protected by deliberative process, official information, informant 

privileges, as well the plain language of the statutory mandate to hold 

confidential information obtained by CRD in the regular 

performance of its duties. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, definitions, 

and limitations, and based on CRD’s present knowledge and 

information which does not include the review or analysis of 

documents still to be produced by Defendant and/or experts, the CRD 

responds as follows: Upon reasonable inquiry and the information 

known or readily available to CRD at the time of this response, CRD 

has insufficient information to admit or deny this request for the 

reasons set forth in the corresponding Interrogatory, Set 3, No. 16. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 

If CRD’s response to Request for Admission No. 16 set forth in 

Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Civil Rights Department, Set 

One, propounded by GEI on May 10, 2024, was not an unqualified 

admission, state all facts upon which CRD bases said response. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 

CRD incorporates the Preliminary Statement as though fully set forth 

herein. CRD also incorporates its objections to Response to Request 

for Admission No. 16, as though fully set forth herein. CRD further 

objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome 

insofar as it seeks “all facts” upon which CRD based its response. 

Without waiving the foregoing objections, and limiting its response 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 9 of 11
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 

10 

to the material facts supporting its Request for Admission 

Response(s), CRD answers as follows: 

Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), CRD directs Grimmway to every IP file 

produced to CRD that: (1) contains documentation mentioning 

reassignment or transfer to an alternative position during the 

interactive process (e.g., lists of vacant jobs sent to an employee, 

position descriptions in the IP file other than descriptions of the 

employee’s “usual and customary” position, notes/emails/letters that 

mention an alternative position) and (2) contains evidence that this 

employee was not given preference for reassignment or transfer to an 

alternative position during the interactive process. Upon reasonable 

inquiry and the information known or readily available to CRD at the 

time of this response, CRD has insufficient information to admit or 

deny that there are less than 20 employees who meet this criteria. 

Employee Relations Supervisor Rocio Ramirez testified that 

employees in Grimmway’s so called interactive process do not 

receive preference in hiring but rather have priority to “interview” 

for open positions. Rocio Ramirez Dep. 70:11-71:18. Production 

Manager Kari Sanchez testified that that an open position would be 

awarded by seniority if a qualified disabled employee as well as other 

qualified applicants had applied for an open position. Kari Sanchez 

Dep. 78:2-79:5. Medical leave management specialist Keisha Butler 

testified that she believed employees in Grimmway’s interactive 

process “bid” for open positions. Keisha Butler Dep. 215:5-217:19. 

The IP files of Ruben Ramirez (GEI00011335-11464), 

[REDACTED] (GEI00002163- 2187), and (GEI00392425-392495) 

are examples of files that contain evidence that alternative positions 

were identified as potential reasonable accommodations but that the 

employee was required to interview for the position rather than given 

preference in hiring. There are approximately 105 additional files 

that contain evidence that alternative positions were identified as 

potential accommodations, but the files are inconclusive as to 

whether the individual was or would have been required to interview 

or otherwise compete for the open position. 

Grimmway argues that CRD is, or reasonably should be, in a position to identify at this 

stage the number of employees that it contends the alleged unlawful practice applied to, and that 

it is not enough to state “that certain ill-defined files could reflect this practice.” ECF No. 79 at 

19. The court agrees with CRD that it did answer the question: it identified 105 employee files 

that contained some evidence that the employee may have been impacted by the unlawful 

practice, and it offered to provide a list of the files. ECF No. 79. This is responsive on its face, 

and the court finds no cause to compel any further response beyond what CRD has already 

offered. The motion is denied on this point. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 10 of 11
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 

11 

D. Objections Regarding CRD’s Preliminary Statement 

Grimmway argues CRD improperly incorporated lengthy preliminary statements into its 

discovery responses. ECF No. 79 at 20. CRD has agreed to remove those preliminary statements 

and add individual objections as appropriate. ECF No. 79 at 26. The court finds the issue moot. 

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons explained above, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to compel at 

ECF No. 79 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 11, 2024. 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 82 Filed 07/12/24 Page 11 of 11