Paknad

Paknad v. Superior Court CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2026H052652California3,314 words

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,

H050711.)

A. Paknad I

After the trial court denied her motion to compel production of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.