Melton v. Regional Center of the East Bay, Inc.

Background

Selena Melton and Regional Center of the East Bay, Inc. had discovery disputes. The court held a hearing on August 7, 2024, and ruled on Melton’s motion to compel discovery.

Original deposition notice

For Topic 7, Melton sought testimony about all Regional Center vendors that had received a corrective-action plan from 2016 onward and the reasons for those plans. The Regional Center had prepared a witness to testify about plans involving vendors serving deaf consumers, but it estimated that hundreds of vendors had received plans. The court concluded that one witness could not reasonably testify about hundreds of plans and their bases. It denied the motion to compel as to Topic 7 without prejudice and granted Melton leave to serve a narrower deposition topic.

For Topics 19 through 24, Melton sought testimony about the facts, witnesses, and documents supporting the Regional Center’s denials of allegations in the amended complaint and its affirmative defenses. The court explained that these requests could be made through written questions or requests for admission, but Rule 30 did not allow these contention-based subjects as deposition topics. The court denied the motion to compel as to these topics.

First amended deposition notice

The amended notice added Topic 25, seeking information about all deaf Regional Center consumers and the effective-communication services provided to them from 2016 onward. The Regional Center estimated that about 280 consumers could fall within the request. The court found that a witness could not reasonably be prepared to testify about all 280 consumers and the services provided to each. It denied the motion to compel as to this topic without prejudice and granted Melton leave to serve a narrower topic.

Second amended deposition notice and request for production

Request for production 2 sought all corrective-action plans issued to vendors from 2014 onward. The court treated this as a document-production request rather than a deposition topic, so the concern about a witness’s ability to remember information did not apply. Although the Regional Center argued that locating the plans would require reviewing files for about 3,600 vendors, the court found the plans relevant to Melton’s systemwide discrimination claim. The court stated that the plans could help show which concerns the Regional Center prioritized and whether it addressed concerns involving deaf consumers similarly to concerns involving hearing consumers. The court granted the motion to compel on this issue.

First set of document requests

Requests for production 34 and 35 sought documents showing the number of deaf consumers living in group homes, the names of those group homes, and the effective-communication services provided to those consumers since 2016. The court granted the motion to compel as described in the order. The Regional Center had to produce documents showing the requested information within 30 days. It could redact the names and personal information of other deaf consumers, but it could not redact the names of the group homes. The court stated that the existing protective order adequately addressed confidentiality concerns and allowed the Regional Center to seek more time for good cause.

Second set of document requests

The Regional Center had agreed to produce documents responsive to Requests 46–49, 51–61, 63–64, 67, and 69–72, and 76–82, as well as one specified document for Request 50 and one specified document for Request 62. The court ordered the Regional Center to complete that production within 30 days. It also ordered a privilege log for documents already produced by August 9, 2024, and a further privilege log for this set of requests within 30 days.

Disposition and scope

The order ruled on discovery matters only. It did not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred or resolve the parties’ underlying claims.