NORRIS, PAUL vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1142, 1149.) "Evidence Code section 912, subdivision (a) specifically provides that waiver of the privilege occurs when any holder of the privilege 'has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure made by anyone.'" (Ibid.) "[A]n implied waiver occurs where the plaintiff has placed in issue a communication which goes to the heart of the claim in controversy." (Ibid.)

Defendant argues that there is an attorney-client relationship between Defendant and Ms. Guerin because Ms. Guerin was expected to use her legal expertise in creating findings of fact for the report into Plaintiff's retaliation claim. The question of whether the report itself is a privileged communication is moot because Defendant has waived privilege over the report itself as well as Ms. Guerin's findings by putting the investigation and findings at issue in the litigation and also by producing the full report and draft reports with only a few redactions.

Defendant next argues that the underlying communications between CSU employees and in-house counsel that were communicated to Ms. Guerin are privileged because the communications were confidential and the primary goal of the communications was to obtain or provide legal advice. Along with its opposition to the instant motion, Defendant provided a privilege log of redactions made to the draft Guerin Report. The majority of the redacted information has been waived pursuant to Evidence Code section 912 and/or via implied waiver.

Defendant produced nearly all of the report yet seeks to redact information under headings such as "Reasons for Alleged Adverse Actions" and "Placing Paul Norris on Administrative Leave of Absence" and "Paul Norris's Non-Retention." In another example, in the first entry on page four of the privilege log, Defendant has redacted information regarding what appears to a request to talk about facts related to Mr. Norris's non-retention. Such information goes to the hearing of the claim in controversy and thus privilege is waived.

It is well settled "that the law does not permit a party to use a confidentiality privilege as both a shield and a sword." (Ford v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 277, 286.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel Defendant to produce unredacted copies of the reports and draft reports.

Requests for Production

Defendant agreed to supplement certain responses and to identify responsive documents by bates number. As to RFP Set 4 Requests Nos. 1 and 2, it appears the relevant overtime records have been produced. Request No. 24 seeks Ms. Strottman's written reports and/or complaints relating to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's conduct or behavior. Such reports or complaints are not privileged simply because Ms. Strottman is an attorney. To the extent such documents exist, they are relevant and should be produced and/or identified on a privilege log.

Request No. 28 seeks documents relating to key persons' job duties and/or job classifications. Such documents are relevant and should be produced. Request No. 29 seeks documents relating to why one of Plaintiff's subordinates moved to a different role. Such documents are relevant to the extent they relate to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's conduct or behavior and should be produced. Request No. 34 seeks documents relating to an investigation pertaining to Plaintiff's job performance. Such documents are relevant and should be produced.

RFP Set 5 Requests Nos. 4-7 seek offer letters Ms. Knott received for roles she held before and after working for Plaintiff and applications Ms. Knott filled. Such documents do not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RFP Set 6 Requests No. 5 seeks a report related to a separate investigation into a separate employee's complaints. Such a report does not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant has agreed to produce documents in response to Request No.

8. Request Nos. 9-12 seek several text messages related to key personnel's employment. The requests are overbroad and do not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant has agreed to produce the text message sought in Request No.

13. Requests Nos. 15-16 seek documents relating to a site visit that multiple deponents have testified is unrelated to the instant case.

RFP Set 7 Request No. 2 seeks communications between certain individuals relating to Plaintiff. Such communications are relevant and should be produced. Communications are not privileged simply because one party is an attorney. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel as to RFP Set 4 Requests Nos. 24, 28, 29, 34; RFP Set 6 Requests Nos. 8 and 13; and RFP Set 7 Request No.

2. Defendant shall produce responsive, non-privileged documents by July 13, 2026, at 5 pm. For any information over which Defendant asserts privilege, Defendant shall serve a privilege log by July 13, 2026, at 5 pm. The privilege log shall include at least the following: entry numbers (consecutively numbered starting with 1), the date of the communication/work product, the author/sender, the recipient(s), the type of privilege asserted, whether the document is withheld or redacted, the description of the communication/information, and asterisks following the names of lawyers. Defendant shall identify documents responsive to each request by bates number and serve such identification on Plaintiff by August 12, 2026.

PR-25-000754 - In the Matter of THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions Against Respondent for Misuse of the Discovery Process - GRANTED in part and denied in