## Facts

- Former sales employees sued their employer, ICG Telecom Group, Inc., alleging employment discrimination tied to a policy they called “footprinting,” described as racially based segregation of sales and service territories in Los Angeles.
- The employees claimed they were terminated or coerced to resign and that footprinting impaired their ability to compete for sales in areas associated with Hispanic communities.
- During the litigation, the employees served three person-most-knowledgeable (PMK) deposition notices seeking testimony and documents about: (1) termination reasons, supporting documents, and decisionmakers; (2) the employer’s interrogatory responses; and (3) ICG’s Southern California sales/service footprint and related policies.
- The notices sought production of personnel files, job descriptions, termination-related records not in personnel files, communications with administrative agencies, and documents reflecting ICG’s sales/service areas or footprint.
- ICG, facing severe financial distress and bankruptcy-related layoffs, designated PMK witnesses who allegedly had little or no knowledge of key topics and did not bring requested documents; the witnesses could provide only general information rather than ICG-specific footprinting practices and records.

## Issues

1. Whether ICG complied with California discovery obligations by producing PMK witnesses with limited knowledge and without responsive documents on noticed topics.
2. Whether discovery into the alleged footprinting policy was relevant and within the permissible scope of discovery in an employment-discrimination case.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying motions to compel further PMK testimony and related production.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held ICG’s PMK testimony and document production were inadequate under California discovery law.
- The court held the trial court erred by treating footprinting as irrelevant and by denying motions to compel further discovery.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate its prior order denying the motions to compel and to enter a new order granting them.

## Legal Principles

- A corporation served with a PMK deposition notice must make a good-faith effort to produce a witness (or witnesses) who is genuinely the “most knowledgeable” on the noticed topics, including by preparing the designee to testify from corporate information, not merely personal recollection.
- Corporate disruption (including bankruptcy and layoffs) does not eliminate the duty to conduct a reasonably diligent search for information and documents available through corporate records and other reasonably accessible sources.
- Discovery is broadly permitted as to nonprivileged matters relevant to the subject matter or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence; information need not be itself admissible to be discoverable.
- A trial court abuses its discretion when discovery rulings deprive a party of a fair opportunity to obtain evidence on central theories of the case, including relevant policy-based discrimination claims.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal required further PMK depositions and production because a corporate party must provide prepared, truly knowledgeable witnesses and responsive documents, and discovery into an alleged discriminatory territory policy was relevant and improperly curtailed by the trial court.


Maldonado v. Superior Court, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1390, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 137 (Ct. App. 2002)