Picking up from my early morning post:
ATVI is asking the California court to stop the DFEH case so they can look into what was going on with a DFEH attorney.
For this they want limited discovery (court ordered ability to get information) to check into the alleged ethics issues we first heard about from EEOC in the Federal case.
If an issue is there, they want the court to remove the DFEH attorney from the case.
ATVI counsel has had dealings with one of the former EEOC, now DFEH, counsel:
- Paul Hastings LLP represented Activision Blizzard during part of the DFEH’s pre- filing investigation. One of the lawyers representing the DFEH in this action, whom the EEOC contends obtained confidential information about Activision Blizzard during her employment with the EEOC, conducted at least four depositions, signed at least six sets of discovery, and authored at least three meet and confer letters in the DFEH’s investigation. She also participated meaningfully in a number of meet and confer conferences related to the DFEH’s investigation.
-DECLARATION OF FELICIA A. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, ET AL.’S…
It’s important because of that regulatory error I mentioned before. Problems in the process at an agency can contaminate the result and keep the regulator from doing much. I was expecting a much more technical argument of that nature, not an end-game extremis argument about it.
This is partially happening because DFEH attacked the Consent Decree using grounds basically equalling regulatory error. EEOC can not let that stand and keep their position, so they defended themselves. EEOC is the bigger dog in this fight, I’m confused by the approach DFEH has gone with so far…
DFEH has responded in the California court today, of course saying there’s no emergency, and the two aren’t working on it anymore, while having a new firm take over the case it seems.
DFEH, for their part, in the Federal court handling the EEOC case, is again asking the court to strike (remove from the record) the EEOC pleadings marked as 15, 16, and 17 in the docket list. These are the EEOC responses to DFEH trying to intervene.
I find this a curious move: I think the court already mooted their objection and request to strike from 10/11/21. So repeating it seems out of place to me.
Especially when they don’t answer what the court Ordered on 10/11/21: A schedule for briefing and arguing a motion to intervene. They talk about a phone conference with EEOC because of the Court’s Order, but they ignore the reason for it to argue about removing EEOC pleadings.
- On Thursday, October 14, pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF Dkt. No. 19), I participated in a video conference meet and confer with EEOC counsel about a briefing schedule for any motion to intervene. During the meeting, I again raised the issue of EEOC’s improper disclosure of information that DFEH considers privileged and confidential. I reiterated DFEH’s position that the disclosure was improper and that all documents containing privileged information or referring to privileged and confidential information be withdrawn. EEOC did not commit to taking any action during this call.
-DECLARATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHREIBER IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING’S MOTION TO STRIKE…
Considering they’ve expanded their demands to ALL of EEOC’s replies… this looks weird…
Also, it is not encouraging that DFEH pleas can’t keep events in time order; that is not helpful.
I think DFEH is overreaching trying to claim EEOC was talking about DFEH’s privilege. It’s obvious EEOC would be talking about EEOC. It’s highly unlikely those communications with DFEH were willy/nilly stuck in a pleading; the odds are that high level oversight was part of those things being included. (Next possible watchword! Third party doctrine.)
(Seriously, DFEH is trying to have the court strike the law argument of the EEOC; I am just not getting what DFEH thinks they’re doing.)
Expectation:
EEOC wins their argument, the Consent Decree will go forward.
DFEH gets a lot of drama in state court, how that ends, I don’t know.
