The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Document 58)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James Lanier's ("Plaintiff") motion to compel Defendant Clovis Unified School District ("Defendant") to provide further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two ("RFP"). (Doc. 58). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFP "Nos. 1, 2 and 4 through 70." (Doc. 58). The parties have filed separate statements regarding the discovery disagreement, which the Court will accept in lieu of the requisite Joint Statement, in this instance. Taking the matter under submission, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion as to RFP Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion as to RFP Nos. 5 through 69.*fn1
Pro Se Plaintiff James Lanier, the African-American owner of an accredited sports officiating business called SportsTime Officials Association, brings this action pursuant to Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.*fn2
With respect to his Title VI claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clovis Unified School District discriminated against him on the basis of his race, in the process of awarding contracts for sports officiating services for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. (Doc. 23). Mr. Lanier sought to provide sports officiating services to Clovis Unified as an independent contractor. (Doc. 23). Specifically, in May 2010, in response to an invitation from Clovis Unified, Mr. Lanier submitted a proposal to provide sports officiating services for the 2010-2011 school year. (Doc. 23). In June 2010, he was informed that the contract was awarded to, and split between, the white-owned businesses which had also submitted bids, including California Sports Officials Association (CSOA) and San Joaquin Valley Officials Association (SJVOA). (Doc. 23). Plaintiff alleges that Clovis Unified's selection process foreclosed the selection of businesses owned by racial minorities. Plaintiff further alleges that Clovis Unified improperly renewed its contractual relationship with CSOA and SJVOA for the following school year, thereby denying Plaintiff access, based on racial discrimination, to a contract for the 2011-2012 school year as well. (Doc. 23).
Plaintiff also raises Title VII employment discrimination claims against Clovis Unified, specifically disparate treatment, disparate impact and retaliation claims.*fn3 (Doc. 23). However, the record indicates that Mr. Lanier was not an employee, former employee or prospective employee of Clovis Unified during the time period relevant to this matter.
On September 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; California Education Code § 220 et seq.; and "the Continuous Violations Doctrine 79 Cal. App. 4th 570." (Doc. 1). After a screening of Plaintiff's pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's state law claims with prejudice but allowed his Title VI claim to proceed. (Doc. 5). Defendant brought a motion to dismiss on February 24, 2012. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff responded by filing, pro se, a First Amended Complaint (FAC), on March 16, 2012, which was not screened by the Court. The FAC retains Plaintiff's Title VI claim (race-based discrimination in the awarding of sports officiating contracts for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years) and adds two new Title VII claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (disparate treatment/disparate impact discrimination in employment) and § 2000e-3 (retaliation). (Doc. 23).
Defendant brought a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, challenging the Title VI claim on a number of grounds, and the Title VII employment discrimination claims solely on a res judicata theory, with reference to one of Plaintiff's prior cases before this Court (No. 1:09-cv-02084). (Doc. 25). Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC was denied in its entirety by the district court on April 14, 2012. (Doc. 32).
On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff served on Defendant his Request for Production of Documents, Set One, requesting documents pertaining to seventy categories. (Doc. 61). In response, Defendant produced documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and represented, with respect to RFP No. 5, that all responsive documents had already been provided as part of Defendant's initial disclosures. (Doc. 61). On December 11, 2012, Plaintiff served his Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, which was identical to Set One except that RFP No. 5 in Set One was excluded from Set Two, and Set One RFP Nos. 6-70 were renumbered RFP Nos. 5-69 respectively, in Set Two. (Docs. 61, 58 Exh. A and Exh. C). Defendant did not produce any documents in response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. Rather, Defendant objected to all the requests in Set Two on multiple grounds, including that each request had already been addressed in Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Doc. 61). Thereupon, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two.
The instant motion to compel pertains to Set Two of Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents ("RFP"), and specifically seeks supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2 and 4 through 69 therein. (Doc. 58). RFP Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are relevant to Plaintiff's Title VI claim, while RFP Nos. 5 - 69 appear to be related to Plaintiff's Title VII claims (see discussion below).
Plaintiff's RFP No. 1 seeks the minutes of all Clovis Unified board, administration and athletic directors' meetings relating to the awarding of the school district's sports officiating services contracts for the ...