Michael P Sipiora vs Santa Barbara Graduate School Inc

Case Number

24CV00466

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 08/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, plaintiff Michael P. Sipiora’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, production of documents, and for monetary sanctions is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. The motion to compel is granted as modified.

            a. Requests for production of documents Nos. 166 and 167 are modified to require Pacifica to provide: “All documents concerning any grievances, complaints, or legal claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, submitted by or on behalf of [Patricia Abracia or Joanne Lopez Hayden], during the time of their employment with Pacifica.”

            b. Pacifica shall provide further, code-compliant, responses to requests for production of documents Nos. 166 and 167, as modified, without objection except as to privilege, along with production of the documents, no later than August 29, 2025.

            c. For any documents withheld on a claim of privilege, Pacifica shall provide a privilege log identifying each responsive document withheld on the ground of privilege together with sufficient additional information, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, for plaintiff and the court to evaluate the claim of privilege.

            d. All documents produced shall be subject to a protective order and shall not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the present action.

            e. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party.

Background: 

This action commenced on January 29, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Michael P. Sipiora (“Sipiora” or “plaintiff”) against defendant Santa Barbara Graduate School, Inc. dba Pacifica Graduate Institute (“Pacifica”).

On March 15, 2024, prior to an answer being filed, Sipiora filed his operate verified first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging violations of the Government Code, Labor Code, Public Policy, and Breach of Contract. Sipiora alleges that he was employed with Pacifica as a professor, under a series of written contracts, for more than 10 years before he was effectively terminated on July 29, 2022, in retaliation for objecting to and complaining about Pacifica’s harassment and mistreatment of female members of Pacifica faculty, in violation of California law including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

On April 30, 2024, Pacifica filed its verified answer to the FAC, admitting some allegations and denying others. Pacifica also sets forth 21 affirmative defenses.

Following prior discovery, and discovery disputes, on January 9, 2025, Sipiora served requests for production of documents, set four, consisting of requests Nos. 165 through 167. Pacifica served written responses to the requests on February 11, 2025.

Following attempts to meet and confer with Pacifica, Sipiora now moves to compel further responses to requests 166 and 167, production of responsive documents, and request for monetary sanctions.

Pacifica opposes the motion.

Analysis:

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.” (Italics added.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) “[U]nless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, [the] burden [of showing good cause for the request] is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“Courts must insist discovery devices be used as tools to facilitate litigation rather than as weapons to wage litigation. These tools should be well calibrated; the lancet is to be preferred over the sledgehammer.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.). “Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.” (Id. at p. 223.)

Request No. 166 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any grievances, complaints, or legal claims submitted to YOU by or on behalf of Patricia Abracia, an employee identified by YOU in response to Form Rog – EL 209.2, including but not limited to the grievances, complaints, or legal claims and any reports, investigations, characterizations, responses, discussions, reactions, evaluations, and/or settlement agreements.”

Request No. 167 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any grievances, complaints, or legal claims submitted to YOU by or on behalf of Joanne Lopez Hayden, an employee identified by YOU in response to Form Rog – EL 209.2, including but not limited to the grievances, complaints, or legal claims and any reports, investigations, characterizations, responses, discussions, reactions, evaluations, and/or settlement agreements.”

To each of the requests, Pacifica responded:

“Defendant objects to this request as it seeks information and/or documents containing confidential information, the disclosure of which may violate third-party constitutional rights of privacy. Plaintiff has not shown a particularized need for the confidential information sought. Defendant further objects to the discovery request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain as to the term and/or phrase “ ‘legal claims,’ ” “ ‘grievances,’ ” “ ‘complaints,’ ” “ ‘claims,’ ” “ ‘reports,’ ” “ ‘characterizations,’ ” “ ‘responses,’ ” “ ‘discussions,’ ” and “ ‘reactions.’ ” Defendant objects on the grounds that this request is also overbroad in time and scope, and on that basis, is unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore exceeds the scope of permissible discovery. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Finally, Defendant objects on the grounds this request seeks confidential documents and/or information protected by Evidence Code sections 1119 and 1152.”

Plaintiff argues that the requested information is relevant in that the requests seek discoverable evidence of past acts of retaliation by Pacifica and they are likely to reflect the existence of a pattern of Pacifica of retaliating against employees who complain of FEHA violations.

Pacifica argues that the information sought can be obtained through less intrusive means such as depositions of Abracia and Hayden, that Abracia and Hayden could not have been witnesses to any of the events relative to this action because they were not employed at Pacifica at the time of the allegations in the FAC, that its objections are valid, and that the court has already issued orders addressing requests that are nearly identical to the present requests but directed at different third parties. Pacifica additionally argues that the requests fall outside the parameters of the “me too” doctrine because the evidence does not relate to the same protected class and same decision maker.

The court recognizes, and stands by, the comments that it made in ruling on Pacifica’s motion for protective order related to the deposition of Pacifica’s PMK. The court does find that the present requests suffer from some of the same issues regarding overbreadth of the requests, vagueness of some of the terms, and implication of third-party privacy rights. For example, there is no timeframe given for responsive documents, some terms such as “characterizations” and “reactions” are vague in that they make no sense in the context of the request, and plaintiff seeks things that he is not entitled to such as evaluations and settlement agreements.

However, just because the request is partially objectionable does not mean that the request can not be partially responded to. “A trial court “ ‘shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).)” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

The primary concerns the court has are related to relevance and the privacy rights of Abracia and Hayden.

Plaintiff argues that the information sought relates to acts of retaliation by Pacifica against Abracia and Hayden, who, like plaintiff, opposed acts forbidden by FEHA and were terminated for doing so.

Pacifica argues that it is irrelevant because plaintiff’s alleged wrongdoer, Dr. Rojcewicz, was hired after Abracia and Hayden’s employment ended at Pacifica. In doing so, Pacifica mischaracterizes the allegations of the FAC.

As relevant here, by way of the FAC, plaintiff alleges:

“[Plaintiff] began employment at Pacifica in 2008 and was employed on a continuous basis until July 29, 2022.” (FAC, ¶ 2.)

Dr. Peter Rojcewicz was hired as Provost in approximately 2020.

Dr. Oksana Yakushko and Dr. Jennifer Sandoval’s “primary harasser” was Dr. Rojcewicz. (FAC, ¶ 11.) [Note: The allegations infer that there were other harassers.] “Following Dr. Sipiora’s objections to Dr. Rojcewicz’s conduct, upon information and belief, Dr. Rojcewicz, and possibly others in Pacifica’s Administration, looked for an opportunity to retaliate against Dr. Sipiora.” (Ibid.)

Abracia alleges that she was employed by Pacifica from May 7, 2014, until December 14, 2016. (Abracia Compl., Sipiora Decl., Exh. E, ¶ 2.)

Hayden alleges that she was employed by Pacifica from 2007 until January 22, 2019. (Hayden Compl., Sipiora Decl., Exh. F, ¶¶ 7, 8.)

Like plaintiff in this action, both Abracia and Hayden complained of discrimination and retaliation for reporting FEHA violations.

Rojcewicz is not mentioned in either Abracia’s or Hayden’s complaints. However, that does not mean that information regarding Abracia and Hayden’s claims are entirely irrelevant to the present action. The FAC alleges that others, specifically Pacifica’s administration, engaged in practices that were in violation of FEHA. (see, for example, FAC, ¶¶ 22, 23, 36, 37.)

Most of Pacifica’s arguments rely on cases that deal with admissibility of evidence at trial rather than discovery. Obviously, there is a different standard for what is admissible at trial to what is subject to discovery.

The court finds that plaintiff has met his burden of showing that information regarding Pacifica’s handling of complaints of harassment and discrimination against female members of the faculty is relevant. However, the inquiry does not stop there.

“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. [Citation.] Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern. [Citation.] In [Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 (Hill)], we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. 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. [Citation.] 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.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531at p. 552.)

“The right to privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution ‘extends to one’s confidential financial affairs ....’ [Citation.] This right embraces confidential financial information in ‘whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information.’ [Citation.]” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 503.) This is information that a reasonable person ordinarily protects from disclosure and is a serious threatened intrusion. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 554.)

“Although admissibility is not a prerequisite to discoverability, a heightened standard of discovery may be justified when dealing with information which, though not privileged, is sensitive or confidential.” (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1492.)

Here, Abracia and Hayden’s privacy interests are only affected in a minimal way. They filed lawsuits relating to their claims, making their allegations public. Any minimal intrusion into their privacy can be prevented by making the documents subject to the protective order and ordering that any documents produced are to only be used or disclosed in conjunction with this litigation.

As stated above, the court does find the requests overbroad and vague. Plaintiff has not made a fact specific showing of relevance of documents reflecting Pacifica’s “reports, investigations, characterizations, responses, discussions, reactions, evaluations, or settlement agreements,” most of which would certainly be either privileged or irrelevant. As such, the requests will be modified to require production of: “All documents concerning any grievances, complaints, or legal claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, submitted by or on behalf of [Patricia Abracia or Joanne Lopez Hayden], during the time of their employment with Pacifica.”

            Sanctions

Both Sipiora and Pacifica seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.010, 2023.030, and 2031.310.

The court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

As the motion will be partially granted and partially denied, no monetary sanctions will be ordered in favor of either party. Further, the circumstances existing around this dispute would make the imposition of sanctions unjust at this time.

“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. “ ‘[I]t is a ‘ “central precept” ’ of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery ‘ “be essentially self-executing[.]” ’ ” [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)