Vanessa LeMaistre v. Leland T. Wayne
2:24-cv-10378
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 17, 2025Background
- This order addresses pending discovery disputes between Plaintiff Vanessa LeMaistre and Defendant Leland T. Wayne in a civil lawsuit involving allegations of sexual assault and emotional distress.
- The court previously instructed the parties to brief their discovery disagreements in letter-form; both Plaintiff and Defendant submitted letter briefs and oppositions.
- Disputes involve access to electronically stored information (ESI), written discovery requests, social media account information, subpoena scope, and the scheduling of Defendant's deposition.
- Plaintiff requested greater responses and document production from Defendant; Defendant challenged the scope and relevance of Plaintiff's requests and sought to compel broader document reviews from Plaintiff.
- Defendant served subpoenas on multiple of Plaintiff's post-incident employers, which Plaintiff moved to quash, asserting privacy and relevance concerns.
- The Court resolved these disputes by partially granting and partially denying both parties' requests, providing narrowed guidance regarding ESI and employment record discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defendant's ESI Compliance | Wayne hasn't conducted a diligent ESI search or produced sufficient ESI. | He's complied fully and ESI discovery does not require production of physical devices. | Defendant must diligently search and produce ESI responsive to discovery requests. |
| Social Media Account Identification (Interrogatory) | Wayne must identify all social media accounts since 2015 for discovery tied to case allegations. | Request is an improper fishing expedition and overly broad. | Defendant must identify all relevant social media accounts from 2015 to present. |
| Scope of RFPs re: Drug Use and Social Media | Requests for drug use/social media are justified as relevant to behavioral allegations and complaints. | Requests are overbroad or already responded to with reasonable diligence. | RFPs about drug use denied as overbroad; social media RFPs narrowed and granted. |
| Defendant’s Deposition Scheduling | Court intervention needed to schedule deposition due to deadlock and discovery deadline approaching. | Defendant agrees to deposition on provided dates; sees no court intervention needed. | Plaintiff must select a date (June 20 or 24); Defendant ordered to appear. |
| Subpoenas to Employers | Full employment records are overbroad and invade privacy; not seeking economic damages. | Records are relevant due to Plaintiff’s ongoing emotional distress claims. | Subpoenas narrowed to specific categories relevant to emotional distress; protected. |
| Defendant's Request for Broad Document Review | Plaintiff improperly limited scope of review; should review all hits from Defendant’s proposed terms. | Already reviewed/produced thousands of documents; Defendant’s terms/timeline overbroad. | Court will not compel Plaintiff to review/produce based on overbroad search terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diederich v. Dep’t of Army, 132 F.R.D. 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (qualification of admissions is permitted when partial truths are potentially misleading)
- A.A. v. Cty. of Riverside, 2017 WL 5593023 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (parties permitted to qualify responses to admissions to avoid misleading implications)
(*No cases with official reporter citations—other than above—were cited; additional authorities relied upon unpublished or WL citations.)