MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

_____________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP’s (Defendant or Universal) Motion to Compel Further Responses is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises from Plaintiff Barbara McIntyre’s claims of workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Plaintiff alleges she was an employee of the City of Sacramento (City), and worked on the second floor of the Sacramento City Hall building. (Second Amended Complaint [SAC] ¶¶ 13, 15.) Plaintiff alleges that the City subcontracted with Universal for the provision of security guard services. (SAC ¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that at least 5 security guards employed by Universal were assigned to work at the City Hall location. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff alleges that the City and Universal required female employees to use a badge to access the women’s bathroom on the second floor of City Hall. (SAC ¶¶16-18.) Plaintiff alleges no similar practice was implemented for male employees accessing the men’s bathroom. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also alleges that beginning in February of 2023, male security guards employed by Universal repeatedly entered the women’s restroom while Plaintiff was inside a bathroom stall and banged on the stall door, returning every few minutes until Plaintiff left the bathroom. (SAC ¶¶ 23-80.)

Plaintiff alleges she repeatedly complained to her employer and Universal about the bathroom intrusions, but no action was taken to stop them. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that she ultimately resigned her position in February of 2024 because of her fear of being unsafe and humiliated at work. (SAC ¶ 80.)

As against Defendant Universal, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: discrimination based on sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation; hostile work environment harassment; retaliation; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation; and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Through the instant motion, Universal seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to three Form Interrogatories: 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3.

This matter was originally set for hearing on November 17, 2025, but was continued on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

Court’s motion to December 15, 2025. After the continuance, the parties submitted, and the Court signed, a stipulation and order adding Defendant Universal as a party to a previously entered stipulated protective order between Plaintiff and the City. (See Joint Stipulation to Add Defendant/Cross-Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP as a Party to the Stipulated Protective Order by Joinder Agreement and Order; Dec. 5, 2025.)

Timeliness

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s objections have been waived because the responses were not timely.

A responding party must generally serve its response within 30 days of service of the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) The time to respond is extended by two days if service of the demand was done by e-mail/electronic service within California. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B); see 2016.050.) A party who fails to serve a timely response waives objections to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Based on Defendant’s declaration, the response was not untimely. Defendant served the interrogatories at issue demand by email on June 26, 2025. ((Declaration of Nicholas R. Lane [Lane Decl.], Exh. A.) Plaintiff therefore had 30 days plus 2 days to serve her responses. Plaintiff’s attorney served responses on July 28, 2025. (Lane Decl. ¶ 7.)

Form Interrogatory 6.4

Form Interrogatory 6.4 states the following:

Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state:

(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; (c) the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment; and (d) the charges to date.

Plaintiff’s response to this interrogatory contained primarily objections. (Plf. Opp. Sep. Statement, 2:25-3:8.) Specifically, Plaintiff responded as follows:

Objection, privacy and not reasonably calculated lead to discoverable evidence.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

INCIDENT is inappropriate, ambiguous, overbroad as to be unintelligible since it references an accident, breach of contract or personal injury so clearly is formulated by the Judicial Council for single event breach of contract or personal injury actions, which this is not. Also, this is burdensome and duplicative of the Employment Form interrogatories, to which Plaintiff responded, and duplicative discovery is not permitted under the Discovery Act. Objection to the extent this interrogatory seeks information protected by attorney-client, attorney work product, and Plaintiff’s right of privacy and the privacy rights of third parties.

Plaintiff has not waived her right of medical privacy and proper privacy protections need to be in place before disclosure of information directly related to her injuries is disclosed. That said, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress from Universal’s conduct which manifested in psychological, mental and physical injury.

Universal argues that this response is insufficient. The Court agrees. As Universal notes, it checked the box provided in Section 4(a) of the Form Interrogatories, which defines the term “INCIDENT” as follows: “INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Lane Decl., Exh. A.) This definition is sufficiently clear to apply to the employment-related claims raised by Plaintiff here.

The fact Plaintiff alleges a series of factual “circumstances and events” from which her claims arise (see Opp. 14:28-15:4) does not make this definition so vague and ambiguous as to prevent her from providing any response at all. Plaintiff cites no authority excusing her from responding to a Judicial Council-approved Form Interrogatory on this basis. On the contrary, parties must respond to discovery requests in good faith: “where the question is somewhat ambiguous but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v.

Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

As for Plaintiffs’ objection on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks private medical information, the California Supreme Court has established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy in the context of discovery.

The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (internal citations omitted).)

There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s medical information is protected by the right to privacy. Plaintiff also has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical information to the extent it is unrelated to the issues in this lawsuit. However, such right is not absolute and private information may be subject to discovery where the information is “directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

A party “is not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific mental or emotional injury; the scope of the inquiry permitted depends upon the nature of the injuries which the patient-litigant himself has brought before the court.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 [citations omitted].) “As Lifschutz explains, plaintiffs are 'not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury'; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.

The trial court thus obviously erred in ordering plaintiffs to disclose to defendant their entire lifetime medical histories and this aspect of the challenged discovery order must also be vacated.” (Id. at 864 [citing In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415.)

In this case, the interrogatory at issue is aimed at medical information for injuries that Plaintiff claims was caused by the conduct at issue in her lawsuit. Further, Plaintiff responds that she has “suffered emotional distress from Universal’s conduct which manifested in psychological, mental and physical injury.” While Plaintiff has a privacy interest, Defendant has shown a compelling need for the information requested in this form interrogatory in light of the causes of action alleged and damages sought. The Court finds that the requested information is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the underlying lawsuit.

Further, as noted above, the parties have entered into a stipulated protective order governing the use of information designated as “confidential” by a litigant. (Stipulated Protective Order, April 10, 2025.) Defendant Universal is now a party to that protective order. Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 6.4 appears to contemplate the imposition of “proper privacy protections,” presumably a protective order, as a condition that would resolve her privacy objection. (See Opp. Sep. Statement, 3:4-6.)

The motion is granted as to Form Interrogatory 6.4.

Form Interrogatory 10.1

Form Interrogatory 10.1 states:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state:

(a) a description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted or who examined or treated you.

Plaintiff’s response to this interrogatory also contained only objections. (Plf. Opp. Sep. Statement, 18:4-11.) Specifically, Plaintiff responded as follows:

Objection, privacy and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. INCIDENT is inappropriate, ambiguous, overbroad as to be unintelligible since it references an accident, breach of contract or personal injury so clearly is formulated by the Judicial Council for single event breach of contract or personal injury actions, which this is not. Also, this is burdensome and duplicative of the Employment Form interrogatories, to which Plaintiff responded, and duplicative discovery is not permitted under the Discovery Act. “Involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous as to Plaintiff’s emotional distress and pain and suffering.

These objections are not well taken. As noted above, the definition of “INCIDENT” invoked by Universal includes the “circumstances and events” surrounding the occurrence giving rise to the lawsuit. It therefore applies where, as Plaintiff alleges here, multiple acts or events allegedly give rise to liability. Plaintiff contends in opposition that “[t]he single instance definition of INCIDENT makes this question extremely ambiguous and speculative to answer since Plaintiff alleges two different categories of discrimination and harassment conduct: 1) only women employees were required to swipe a badge reader which collected data on them and granted access to the bathroom, which started in 2016, 2) Universal’s male security guards entered the women employees’ bathroom, banging and yelling at her repeatedly while she was using the bathroom, with a start date of February 2023.” (Opp. 18:19-23.)

However, Plaintiff’s argument proves Universal’s point – the fact that Plaintiff is able to parse the two categories of “circumstances and events” from which her claims arise by date and factual basis demonstrates that she is able to provide information responsive to the interrogatory. The fact that Plaintiff may need to provide further explanation to provide context for her response does not excuse her from responding at all. Further, as Universal argues on reply, Plaintiff, not defendants, is in the best position to know “the specific dates, times, and circumstances of each instances she alleges she suffered from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at work[.]” (Reply 6:24-26.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

To the degree Plaintiff argues the interrogatory is ambiguous because she has alleged injuries as a result of emotional distress, which is not a “part of the body,” Plaintiff is deliberately misconstruing the question. As Plaintiff acknowledges, she has indicated a number of physical symptoms – “e.g., urinary infections, flared inflammatory lichen sclerosis, and headaches” (Opp. 20:17-18) – again, demonstrating that she is able to provide responsive information sought by the interrogatory. Plaintiff’s argument that “these are stress-induced symptoms, not body parts, [sic] the interrogatory did not ask about symptoms or conditions, and the interrogatory asks for a single part of the body, not multiple parts of the body, multiple symptoms or multiple conditions” (Opp. 20:17-20) purposely avoids the point of the interrogatory, which is learning about the physical injuries Plaintiff alleges were caused by Defendants.

With respect to the privacy objection, as set forth above, Plaintiff has put at issue injuries arising from the allegations and occurrences set forth in the Complaint, and Plaintiff asserts that the emotional distress she has suffered had resulted in psychological, mental and physical injury. Plaintiff has alleged that she “had a pre-existing vulnerability to feeling anxious” due to her husband’s murder at the workplace. (SAC ¶ 29.) Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and assertions, the Court finds that Defendant has shown a compelling need for certain information requested regarding pre-existing injuries in this form interrogatory in light of the allegations and damages sought.

However, the Court does not find that Defendant has shown that all such information, without limitation as to time, is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the underlying lawsuit. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court find that the information in the interrogatory may be limited to prior complaints or injuries five years prior to the date of the INCIDENT, which the Court finds is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the underlying lawsuit.

And, as noted above, the Court finds that the responses are subject to the stipulated protective order.

The motion is granted, as set forth above, as to Form Interrogatory 10.1.

Form Interrogatory 10.3

Form Interrogatory 10.3 provides:

At any time after the INCIDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred, (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON involved; c) The nature of any injuries you sustained; d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you consulted or who examined or treated you; and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

(e) The nature of the treatment and its duration.

Plaintiff responded to this interrogatory with objections as well. (Plf. Opp. Sep. Statement, 31:2- 10.) Specifically, Plaintiff responded as follows:

Objection, privacy and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. INCIDENT is inappropriate, ambiguous, overbroad as to be unintelligible since it references an accident, breach of contract or personal injury so clearly is formulated by the Judicial Council for single event breach of contract or personal injury actions, which this is not. It is unclear from the interrogatory if Universal is asking about new injuries or continuing injuries in the term “did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages,” making that phrase ambiguous. To the degree it is asking about continuing injuries, it is duplicative of interrogatories in this set and Universal’s Employment Interrogatories, and duplicative discovery is not permitted under the Discovery Act.

The parties’ arguments regarding Form Interrogatory 10.3 are essentially duplicative of the arguments regarding the previous interrogatory. (See Opp. Sep. Statement 33:27-34:2 [“much of Plaintiff’s reasoning laid out for the previous two interrogatories also applies to this interrogatory”].)

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the motion is granted as to Form Interrogatory 10.3. Because the interrogatory relates directly to injuries sustained after the incident, the Court finds that Defendant has shown a compelling need for the information without limitation as to time.

Plaintiff’s request for a protective order in her opposition papers is denied. Any such request must be made by separate motion. In any event, as noted, a protective order has been entered.

The Court notes its expectations that the Parties comport themselves with professionalism and civility as set forth in the Sacramento County Bar Association, Standards of Professional Conduct and the California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism, both of which are attached to the Local Rules.

Further, while the Court does not deny the motion for failure to meet and confer, the Court notes its concerns with the minimal efforts that appear to have been undertaken by the Parties prior to filing this motion. The Civil Discovery Act requires a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution – counsel must “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294; see Townsend v. Superior Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1433 [informal resolution requirement not fulfilled by bickering between counsel during deposition].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Universal's Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, Set One in Department 25

The Court must remind counsel and the parties that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally. This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel's legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v.

Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it “requires...a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Id., at 1438.) Rather, the meet and confer requirement is designed “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.... This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Stewart v.

Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, quotations and citations omitted.) The Court notes that failure to engage in robust meet and confer efforts in the future may result in a motion being continued or denied.

Plaintiff shall provide further responses to Form Interrogatories No. 6.4, 10.1, and 10.3, as set forth above, no later than January 14, 2025.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.