Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV04568, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04568    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Federico Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. to Request for Production, Set One

Plaintiff Federico Hernandez moves to compel defendant C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. to serve further responses to requests for production Nos. 1-7, 12-15, 17-24, 26-33, 35-53, 55-65, and 68.

Nos. 1-5, 12-15, 17-24, 26-33, 35-37, 39-53, 55, 59-65, 68

            For these requests, plaintiff moves to compel further responses on the basis that defendant produced documents that were not “identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”  (CCP § 2031.280(a).)  Defendant did that.  On May 1, 2023, defendant served a notice of production including a table identifying which documents respond to which requests for production.  (Reyes Decl., Ex. 2.)  Unlike the written responses to requests for production (CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(1)-(3), 2031.220-2031.250), the Civil Discovery Act does not require a specific format for identifying documents by request number.  Section 2031.280 concerns the manner of producing documents, not for responding in writing to the requests for production.  Defendant’s notice of production adequately identifies the documents produced by request number. 

Nos. 6, 7, and 38

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to request Nos. 6, 7, and 38 because defendant objected based on attorney-client privilege and work product but did not provide a privilege log.  When a party objects, it must “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.”  (CCP § 2031.240(b)(1).)  If the responding party objects based on privilege or attorney work product, the response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of” these objections, “including, if necessary, a privilege log.”  (CCP § 2031.240(c)(1).)  Defendant objected to these requests but did not identify any documents being withheld and did not provide a privilege log. 

Defendant argues the motion is moot as to these requests because, on September 8, it agreed to serve a privilege log for No. 38 by September 22.  (Reyes Decl., ¶ 10.)  Nothing in the record shows defendant has served a privilege log.  And defendant did not agree to provide a privilege log for Nos. 6 and 7 though their latest supplemental responses to those requests include objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product.  (Reyes Decl., Ex. 4.)  If defendant is not withholding any documents pursuant to those objections, objecting is improper.  Plaintiff is entitled to a verified response either stating defendant will produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control or identifying the documents withheld and providing factual information to permit plaintiff to evaluate the objections.

Nos. 56-58: Depositions in other cases

            Request Nos. 56-58 ask for “[a]ny and all depositions that you have regarding” 56:
“any claims of physical disability discrimination,” “allegations of violations of FMLA,” and “allegations of violations of CFRA” against defendant.  Defendant objected and did not agree to produce any documents. 

            These requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  They are not limited in time or scope.  Though Nos. 57 and 58 concern California statutes and therefore are geographically limited to California, No. 56 has no geographic limit because it concerns “claims of physical disability discrimination.”  Transcripts of depositions in cases not involving any of the decisionmakers who allegedly discriminated or retaliated against plaintiff have no bearing on this case.  “Any and all depositions” would also include testimony about a broad range of immaterial and private subjects such as employees’ medical conditions and damages.

            Defendant’s objections to Nos. 56-58 are sustained.

No. 70: Organizational chart

            This request asks for “[t]he organizational charts for C.R. LAURENCE CO. A CRH COMPANY at the time of PLAINTIFF’s termination to the present.”  Defendant objected and did not agree to produce any documents. 

            Defendant argues plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer about this request.  Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence included No. 70 in a group of numerous requests for which plaintiff argued defendant made “boilerplate objections.”  (Reyes Decl., Ex. 1.)  In response, defendant argued it already addressed any deficiency in all the requests for production via its further responses on May 18.  (Id., Ex. 2.)  But defendant did not supplement its response to No. 70.  (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, p. 142.)  Only now does defendant raise substantive arguments in support of some of its objections to this request, which are identical to objections to requests for which it makes no such arguments.  (E.g., Nos. 1-5, 12-15.)  In the context of this dispute about dozens of requests, plaintiff made an adequate effort to meet and confer.

            Plaintiff shows good cause to discover these documents.  Plaintiff named several related entities as defendants.  This request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the issue of joint employment or which defendants could otherwise be liable for alleged discrimination. 

            Defendant also argues “the information sought is highly confidential and intrudes on Defendant’s privacy rights.”  (Opp. Separate Statement, p. 6.)  Defendant offers no evidence to support that assertion.  “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)  If the objecting party shows all three elements, then the court must balance the need for disclosure against the right to privacy.  (Ibid.)  Assuming defendant shows the first two elements, any intrusion is minimal.

Defendant’s reliance on Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1287-1288 is misplaced.  Plaintiff does not seek “disclosure of financial information” (id. at p. 1287) or “unfettered access to books and records regarding the [defendant’s] overall business operation” (id. at p. 1288).  Organizational charts merely provide basic information about the business. 

Defendant’s objections to request No. 70 are overruled.

Sanctions

            In its opposition, defendant seeks $2,588.25 in sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.  No sanctions are warranted.  Though not fully successful, this motion achieved meaningful results.  Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in bringing this motion.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. to serve further responses to requests for production is granted as to request Nos. 6, 7, 38, and 70.

Defendant C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. is ordered to serve further verified responses to request Nos. 6, 7, and 38, including a privilege log for all documents withheld, within 20 days.  Defendant C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. is ordered to serve a further verified response without objections to request No. 70 within 20 days.  Defendant shall produce all additional responsive documents concurrently with its written responses.