Batiste v. City of Richmond

Background

David Batiste, a public employee, brought claims against the City of Richmond and others concerning alleged harassment, a hostile work environment, and the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment. The opinion states that Batiste is an African-American man who had been employed by the City since 2007. He alleged that Tim Higares, Defendant Mendoza, and others repeatedly referred to him by the term “Memin,” which he described as associated with a racist caricature. He also alleged that the conduct continued after he complained and after an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint resulted in a finding that use of the term violated the City’s anti-harassment policy.

The operative claims, as narrowed by unopposed motions to dismiss, were a hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a claim under California Government Code section 12940 and following for failure to take reasonable steps. The opinion states that the lawsuit did not include a race-discrimination claim or allegations of adverse employment actions.

Discovery Dispute

Batiste served the City with a deposition notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to designate a public or private entity as the deposition witness; the entity must then select and prepare one or more people to testify on its behalf. The notice listed 13 topics, nine of which were disputed.

The City asked the court to strike Topics 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 and to narrow or limit Topics 3, 4, 10, and 12. Batiste argued that his topics were reasonably specific and that the City was applying an improper “phantom standard.” The court rejected that argument and explained that a Rule 30(b)(6) notice must identify particular subject areas with sufficient specificity, be relevant to the claims, cover a reasonable time period, and be narrowly tailored.

Rulings on the Topics

- Topics 1 and 2 — Granted. Topic 1 sought testimony about the entirety of the City’s Rule 26 disclosures, which covered approximately 1,500 documents and 39 categories. Topic 2 sought testimony about the entirety of the City’s responses to Batiste’s first set of requests for production, involving 107 document requests and approximately 400 pages of documents. The court granted the City’s requests to strike both topics because they were not narrowly tailored and did not appear to cover a reasonable period. - Topics 3 and 4 — Granted. These topics concerned City policies, procedures, and training relating to harassment, hostile work environments, and discrimination in place since Batiste’s hiring. The court granted the City’s request to limit them to the surviving claims, the work units where Batiste was employed, and Batiste’s own supervisory chain. - Topics 5, 6, and 9 — Granted. Topic 5 covered all training provided to all managers and supervisors about all employee matters involving hiring, firing, and work assignments. Topic 6 covered the entire employment histories of four individuals. Topic 9 covered the duties, descriptions, qualifications, and disqualifications for all jobs in every unit where Batiste worked. The court granted the City’s requests to strike these topics because they were too broad, concerned vast amounts of irrelevant information, lacked a reasonable time limit, and were not narrowly tailored. - Topic 10 — Granted. This topic sought the entirety of the City’s employee handbook and various other policies and procedures. The court granted the City’s request to limit it to the employee handbook in effect during Batiste’s employment and to procedures for reporting or escalating harassment complaints. - Topic 12 — Granted. This topic sought citywide investigations and findings concerning harassment and hostile work environment complaints involving City employees other than Batiste since 2017. The court granted the City’s request to limit the topic to harassment arising from the Public Works Department or the Department of Infrastructure and Maintenance Operations since 2017, without names or identification of complainants, subjects, or witnesses beyond job title.

Disposition and Classification

The court stated that all of the City’s objections were sustained. It granted the City’s requests to strike Topics 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 and granted the requests to narrow or limit Topics 3, 4, 10, and 12. The order was a discovery ruling and did not reach the merits of Batiste’s employment claims. It is therefore classified as a procedural order.