Case No. 5:16-cv-02680-LHK (HRL).


United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Labor / Mgmnt. Relations
Nature of Suit: 790 Labor: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stacy Guthmann, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Collins McMahon , McMahon Serepca LLP.

Stacy Guthmann, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Christina Gonzalez , Law Office of Paul J. Smoot, Kendra Lin Orr , McMahon Serepca LLP & Paul Joseph Smoot , Law Office of Paul J. Smoot.

Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Nicole Lutz , Pettit Kohn Ingrassia and Lutz PC & Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones , Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC.

CC-Palo Alto, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Nicole Lutz , Pettit Kohn Ingrassia and Lutz PC & Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones , Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC.


Re: Dkt. No. 32

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Stacy Guthman sues her former employer, claiming (among other things) that she was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for complaining about wage-and-hour violations. This court understands that defendants own, develop, and operate residential communities for older adults. Just prior to her termination, Guthman says she intervened in a dispute between two residents and claims that she followed defendants' policies in reporting one resident's abusive conduct. According to the complaint, plaintiff was placed on administrative leave the next day and subsequently was fired for elder abuse. Plaintiff says she was told that defendants contacted an "Ombudsperson" who conducted an investigation and concluded that she had engaged in elder abuse. Plaintiff claims that the investigation was a sham and that the alleged "elder abuse" was simply a pretext for terminating her employment. Defendants deny any wrongdoing.

Guthman claims that thus far, discovery reveals that the resident did not complain about elder abuse and that the Ombudsman was not contacted by the resident or the residential facility and did not investigate any complaint. This court is told that, although discovery indicates that someone might have contacted the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, Adult Protective Services (APS), defendants reportedly have not produced documents that show whether and why they may have contacted APS.

So, plaintiff subpoenaed APS for any records relating to allegations of elder abuse and incidents and persons connected to this case. On April 7, she filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) 1 because APS has a one-page responsive document, but declines to produce it absent a court order, citing its obligations to keep information in the document confidential. See 42 U.S.C. § 30581i(b)(10)(D) & (e)(2); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15633, 15633.5. However, APS does not oppose production of the document if, following an in camera review, this court concludes that the need for disclosure outweighs the public's interest in keeping the information confidential. Plaintiff argues that she cannot obtain the record from any other source.

Pursuant to this court's interim order re DDJR 1 (Dkt. 33), APS submitted the document to the court for an in camera review. Having reviewed the document, this court orders the document produced, subject to the terms of the stipulated protective order (Dkt. 20). Although APS identifies a legitimate interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information in the document (i.e., to encourage the reporting of elder abuse), this court also takes into account that the subject information appears to be highly material to plaintiff's allegations. And, given what this court has been told about the present state of discovery, it may be that the APS document is the only documentation of the information plaintiff seeks. Additionally, this court finds that the terms of the stipulated protective order are adequate to protect the subject information. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for this discovery is granted. APS shall forthwith produce the document to plaintiff.



1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases