1 CRAIG H. MISSAKIAN (CABN 125202) United States Attorney 2 KENNETH BRAKEBILL (CABN 196696) Acting Chief, Civil Division 3 ROMAN A. SWOOPES (CABN 274167) Assistant United States Attorney 4 60 South Market Street, Suite 1200 San Jose, California 95113 5 Telephone: (408) 535-5084 FAX: (408) 535-5081 6 Roman.Swoopes@usdoj.gov
7 Attorneys for Federal Defendant DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY, 8 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 OAKLAND DIVISION
12 CAROLINA PEREZ, ) Case No. 4:23-cv-06713-JST 13 ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 14 ) REGARDING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS v. ) SUBJECT TO PRIVACY ACT 15 ) DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY, ) Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar 16 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ) ) 17 Defendant. )
18 The parties to this action seek an order from the Court directing Defendant to produce certain 19 documents containing or relating to various employment records maintained by the Department of 20 Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Defendant believes that these records may contain 21 information that should be afforded protection under the Privacy Act of 1974, other Federal privacy law, 22 and/or other federal statutes and regulations that govern the releasability of federal documents and 23 records. The parties request that the Court issue such an order directing Defendant to disclose such 24 documents and/or records. Defendant retains the right to object to the release of documents and/or 25 records. Plaintiff retains the right to move to compel additional documents and/or records. 26 The parties have met and conferred regarding the records that Plaintiff is seeking. As a result of 27 this meet and confer process, they have been able to reach an agreement as to the scope of records that 1 I. Background Regarding Discovery Issues 2 This is an employment discrimination case arising out of Plaintiff’s employment with the 3 Department of Veterans Affairs. Plaintiff alleges that the VA discriminated against her on the basis of 4 race, national origin, and age, and retaliated against her unlawfully. Through document requests, 5 Plaintiff sought documents related to other complaints of alleged discrimination by VA employees. 6 Defendant objected to these requests for a variety of reasons, including overbreadth and 7 disproportionality, and the Privacy Act and other privacy concerns. Except for privacy considerations, 8 the parties have now reached an agreement on a reasonable scope for this discovery. Defendant does not 9 concede the relevance of the documents sought and reserves the right to make further arguments to the 10 Court regarding the admissibility of any documents produced pursuant to this stipulation. 11 Due to Defendant’s concerns relating to the privacy of the individuals whose records are being 12 sought, discussed below, Defendant will not produce the agreed-upon scope of complaint documents 13 unless the Court so orders. The Privacy Act allows the federal government to produce otherwise private 14 documents if ordered by a court. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). 15 Accordingly, the parties stipulate and propose that the Court order Defendant to produce the 16 following documents: 17 1. Documents sufficient to show the reasons for, duration of, and final disposition of any detail 18 by a VA Chief Nurse supervised by David Renfro as a result of complaints, investigations, or 19 other adverse performance-related issues from January 2018 to the present, to the extent such 20 documents have not already been produced; 21 2. (a) Formal EEO complaints filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs from September 22 14, 2021 to the present that name Renfro as a deciding official and that are premised on 23 allegations of disparate treatment and/or retaliation based on race, national origin, age, and 24 prior activity protected by Title VII, and (b) the final agency action for any such complaint 25 (if any). 26 The parties agree to take reasonable efforts to prevent the production of documents or 27 information entitled to attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or any other legally recognized 1 privileged or protected information in connection with this production shall not constitute a waiver of 2 the privilege or protection in this or any other federal or state proceeding, irrespective of the standard of 3 care or specific steps taken to prevent disclosure. The parties further agree that irrespective of the 4 procedures used to screen out privileged materials, the parties shall not argue, in this forum or any other, 5 that any privileges were waived as a result of disclosures in this litigation. If Defendant determines that 6 it has produced a document upon which it wishes to make a claim of privilege, it shall, within 14 days of 7 making such determination, provide all counsel of record notice of the claim of privilege. The parties 8 shall proceed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). 9 Compliance with this notice requirement will be deemed to constitute reasonable steps to rectify 10 disclosures of privileged or protected information or materials. 11 II. Plaintiff’s Position 12 Plaintiff contends that the documents requested are crucial to support claims of discrimination on 13 the basis of race, national origin, gender, age, and retaliation. VA nurse executive, David Renfro, 14 provided conflicting documentation regarding Plaintiff’s performance evaluations prior to being put on 15 detail. Plaintiff consistently achieved high marks of “exceptional and fully successful” before Plaintiff’s 16 submission of a written reply to the proposed admonishment, which highlighted Defendant’s unfair 17 treatment. Plaintiff argued that the assigned assistant chief nurse manager in charge of the facility with a 18 COVID outbreak did not receive any disciplinary actions. Renfro sustained the proposed admonishment 19 for Unbecoming Federal Supervisor. Upon Plaintiff’s return from vacation, she was detailed due to a 20 patient complaint even though Plaintiff does not provide patient services. 21 The results of Plaintiff’s fact-finding report were completed in July of 2021, but Plaintiff did not 22 receive the results at its conclusion. In September of 2021, after repeatedly requesting the results, 23 Plaintiff met with Renfro, who told Plaintiff she should begin looking for another job. During this 24 meeting, Renfro made several false statements, including multiple complaints from Plaintiff’s service, 25 and insisted Plaintiff did not meet leadership criteria portion of her position, despite having received a 26 strong mid-year review. Renfro would not provide Plaintiff with the fact-finding report; instead, Plaintiff 27 was forced to submit a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. The results of the fact-finding 1 Plaintiff insists the motive behind receiving a formal admonishment and being placed on detail 2 are directly related to clear and apparent disparate treatment. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class; 3 her job performance was satisfactory; an adverse employment action was taken against her; and 4 similarly-situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment. Renfro’s 5 actions against Plaintiff are motivated through discrimination and retaliation rather than Plaintiff’s job 6 performance. Records of Renfro’s decisions as a deciding official or complaints against Renfro directly 7 support Plaintiff’s assertations of discrimination. 8 III.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 CRAIG H. MISSAKIAN (CABN 125202) United States Attorney 2 KENNETH BRAKEBILL (CABN 196696) Acting Chief, Civil Division 3 ROMAN A. SWOOPES (CABN 274167) Assistant United States Attorney 4 60 South Market Street, Suite 1200 San Jose, California 95113 5 Telephone: (408) 535-5084 FAX: (408) 535-5081 6 Roman.Swoopes@usdoj.gov
7 Attorneys for Federal Defendant DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY, 8 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 OAKLAND DIVISION
12 CAROLINA PEREZ, ) Case No. 4:23-cv-06713-JST 13 ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 14 ) REGARDING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS v. ) SUBJECT TO PRIVACY ACT 15 ) DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY, ) Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar 16 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ) ) 17 Defendant. )
18 The parties to this action seek an order from the Court directing Defendant to produce certain 19 documents containing or relating to various employment records maintained by the Department of 20 Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Defendant believes that these records may contain 21 information that should be afforded protection under the Privacy Act of 1974, other Federal privacy law, 22 and/or other federal statutes and regulations that govern the releasability of federal documents and 23 records. The parties request that the Court issue such an order directing Defendant to disclose such 24 documents and/or records. Defendant retains the right to object to the release of documents and/or 25 records. Plaintiff retains the right to move to compel additional documents and/or records. 26 The parties have met and conferred regarding the records that Plaintiff is seeking. As a result of 27 this meet and confer process, they have been able to reach an agreement as to the scope of records that 1 I. Background Regarding Discovery Issues 2 This is an employment discrimination case arising out of Plaintiff’s employment with the 3 Department of Veterans Affairs. Plaintiff alleges that the VA discriminated against her on the basis of 4 race, national origin, and age, and retaliated against her unlawfully. Through document requests, 5 Plaintiff sought documents related to other complaints of alleged discrimination by VA employees. 6 Defendant objected to these requests for a variety of reasons, including overbreadth and 7 disproportionality, and the Privacy Act and other privacy concerns. Except for privacy considerations, 8 the parties have now reached an agreement on a reasonable scope for this discovery. Defendant does not 9 concede the relevance of the documents sought and reserves the right to make further arguments to the 10 Court regarding the admissibility of any documents produced pursuant to this stipulation. 11 Due to Defendant’s concerns relating to the privacy of the individuals whose records are being 12 sought, discussed below, Defendant will not produce the agreed-upon scope of complaint documents 13 unless the Court so orders. The Privacy Act allows the federal government to produce otherwise private 14 documents if ordered by a court. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). 15 Accordingly, the parties stipulate and propose that the Court order Defendant to produce the 16 following documents: 17 1. Documents sufficient to show the reasons for, duration of, and final disposition of any detail 18 by a VA Chief Nurse supervised by David Renfro as a result of complaints, investigations, or 19 other adverse performance-related issues from January 2018 to the present, to the extent such 20 documents have not already been produced; 21 2. (a) Formal EEO complaints filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs from September 22 14, 2021 to the present that name Renfro as a deciding official and that are premised on 23 allegations of disparate treatment and/or retaliation based on race, national origin, age, and 24 prior activity protected by Title VII, and (b) the final agency action for any such complaint 25 (if any). 26 The parties agree to take reasonable efforts to prevent the production of documents or 27 information entitled to attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or any other legally recognized 1 privileged or protected information in connection with this production shall not constitute a waiver of 2 the privilege or protection in this or any other federal or state proceeding, irrespective of the standard of 3 care or specific steps taken to prevent disclosure. The parties further agree that irrespective of the 4 procedures used to screen out privileged materials, the parties shall not argue, in this forum or any other, 5 that any privileges were waived as a result of disclosures in this litigation. If Defendant determines that 6 it has produced a document upon which it wishes to make a claim of privilege, it shall, within 14 days of 7 making such determination, provide all counsel of record notice of the claim of privilege. The parties 8 shall proceed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). 9 Compliance with this notice requirement will be deemed to constitute reasonable steps to rectify 10 disclosures of privileged or protected information or materials. 11 II. Plaintiff’s Position 12 Plaintiff contends that the documents requested are crucial to support claims of discrimination on 13 the basis of race, national origin, gender, age, and retaliation. VA nurse executive, David Renfro, 14 provided conflicting documentation regarding Plaintiff’s performance evaluations prior to being put on 15 detail. Plaintiff consistently achieved high marks of “exceptional and fully successful” before Plaintiff’s 16 submission of a written reply to the proposed admonishment, which highlighted Defendant’s unfair 17 treatment. Plaintiff argued that the assigned assistant chief nurse manager in charge of the facility with a 18 COVID outbreak did not receive any disciplinary actions. Renfro sustained the proposed admonishment 19 for Unbecoming Federal Supervisor. Upon Plaintiff’s return from vacation, she was detailed due to a 20 patient complaint even though Plaintiff does not provide patient services. 21 The results of Plaintiff’s fact-finding report were completed in July of 2021, but Plaintiff did not 22 receive the results at its conclusion. In September of 2021, after repeatedly requesting the results, 23 Plaintiff met with Renfro, who told Plaintiff she should begin looking for another job. During this 24 meeting, Renfro made several false statements, including multiple complaints from Plaintiff’s service, 25 and insisted Plaintiff did not meet leadership criteria portion of her position, despite having received a 26 strong mid-year review. Renfro would not provide Plaintiff with the fact-finding report; instead, Plaintiff 27 was forced to submit a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. The results of the fact-finding 1 Plaintiff insists the motive behind receiving a formal admonishment and being placed on detail 2 are directly related to clear and apparent disparate treatment. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class; 3 her job performance was satisfactory; an adverse employment action was taken against her; and 4 similarly-situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment. Renfro’s 5 actions against Plaintiff are motivated through discrimination and retaliation rather than Plaintiff’s job 6 performance. Records of Renfro’s decisions as a deciding official or complaints against Renfro directly 7 support Plaintiff’s assertations of discrimination. 8 III. Defendant’s Position 9 Defendant contends that the Privacy Act prohibits federal government agencies from disclosing 10 “any record [about an individual] which is contained in a system of records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). 11 However, the Privacy Act allows for disclosure “pursuant to the order of a court of competent 12 jurisdiction.” Id. 13 In addition to the Privacy Act, Defendant contends that a claimed need for discovery must be 14 balanced against an individual’s right to privacy. When a responding party asserts an objection to 15 protect documents from an employee’s files, such as the EEO complaints sought here, “courts will 16 balance the compelling need for the discovery against the employee’s fundamental right to privacy.” 17 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Elec. Tr. Inc., No. C 04-3435 JSW (MEJ), 2006 WL 18 1525809, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2006) (applying primarily California law). In National Union, Judge 19 James stated that, “[e]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues 20 of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed without a careful balancing of the need for the 21 information against the privacy interest.” Id. at *3. Recognizing that “[p]ermitting disclosure of such 22 private information absent a compelling need would result . . . in a ‘clearly defined, serious, and 23 unnecessary injury to the privacy’ of employees who are not parties to this lawsuit,” the Court denied 24 the request to compel production of performance evaluations of certain employees. Id. at *10, quoting 25 Raddatz v. Std. Register Co., 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Accordingly, ordering the “production of 26 such non-party employee files – even under the restrictions of a Protective Order – is not a step which 27 the Court should lightly undertake.” Raddatz, 177 F.R.D. at 447-448. 1 parties have stipulated. Information subject to this Order shall be used only for the purpose of this 2 particular litigation and shall not be disclosed to any person, as set forth in the protective order. 3 4 DATED: December 19, 2025 Respectfully submitted, 5 CRAIG H. MISSAKIAN 6 United States Attorney
7 /s/ Roman A. Swoopes ROMAN A. SWOOPES 8 Assistant United States Attorney
9 Attorneys for Federal Defendant
10 DATED: December 19, 2025 Respectfully submitted, 11 THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, P.C. 12 /s/ Anita Mazumdar Chambers 13 ANITA MAZUMDAR CHAMBERS
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 * In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that all signatories 16 have concurred in the filing of this document.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 The Court hereby orders Defendant to produce the following documents to Plaintiff within 14 3 days of the date of this Order: 4 1. Documents sufficient to show the reasons for, duration of, and final disposition of any detail 5 by a VA Chief Nurse supervised by David Renfro as a result of complaints, investigations, or 6 other adverse performance-related issues from January 2018 to the present, to the extent such 7 documents have not already been produced; 8 2. (a) Formal EEO complaints filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs from September 9 14, 2021 to the present that name Renfro as a deciding official and that are premised on 10 allegations of disparate treatment and/or retaliation based on race, national origin, age, and 11 prior activity protected by Title VII, and (b) the final agency action for any such complaint 12 (if any). 13 The Court further orders pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence that 14 irrespective of the care that is actually exercised in reviewing materials for privilege, disclosure of 15 privileged or protected information or documents in connection with the material described above will 16 not constitute or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture, in this or any other federal or state proceeding, of any 17 claims of attorney-client privilege or work product protection that the disclosing Party would otherwise 18 be entitled to assert with respect to the information or documents and their subject matter. 19 The Court further orders that the disclosure of privileged or protected information produced 20 pursuant to this order shall be deemed unintentional, inadvertent, and compelled by order of this Court. 21 Such disclosure will not constitute a waiver of the disclosing party’s right to claim any privilege or 22 protection, including without limitation the deliberative process privilege, that would have applied to the 23 information or documents or their subject matter but for the disclosure, provided only that the party 24 disclaiming waiver employed procedures reasonably designed to screen out privileged materials. 25 The Court further orders that Defendant may designate documents produced as “Confidential” 26 pursuant to the protective order dated December 17, 2025 entered in this case, Dkt. No. 57. 27 The Court further orders that nothing contained within this order shall be construed as a waiver 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: December 23, 2025 3 HON. JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27