Paknad
Paknad v. Superior Court CA6
Opinion
Opinion
Lie, J.
I. BACKGROUND
While still employed by Intuitive, Paknad made two formal complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation—complaints that Intuitive retained attorney Andrea Kelly Smethurst to investigate. Smethurst interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, and produced two reports containing her findings and conclusions. While a summary of the findings was conveyed to Paknad, Intuitive did not share with Paknad the underlying reports.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 After she was fired, Paknad sued the company and her former supervisors.2 In asserting avoidable consequences as an affirmative defense to Paknad’s complaint, Intuitive cited the Smethurst investigations and touted their thoroughness and independence, stating “[d]efendant . . . thoroughly investigated every allegation that [p]laintiff presented by hiring an independent, outside investigator to conduct two investigations, interview numerous witnesses (some of which she interviewed several times), and review a large volume of documentary evidence.” (See Paknad I, supra,