Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV16039, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 23STCV16039 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Bernard Smith moves to
compel defendant Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) to provide further
responses to requests for production Nos. 14, 37-42, 46, 62, 70, 82-87, 89-97. A
party propounding requests for production may move to compel further responses
if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a]
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,”
or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)
Meet and
Confer
FedEx argues plaintiff did not meet and confer about requests
for production Nos. 82-87 and 91-97.
Plaintiff’s first meet and confer letter discusses the disputes over
these requests for production. (Butzen
Decl., Ex. 5, p. 31.) Plaintiff made an
adequate attempt to informally resolve the dispute over these requests.
RFP Nos. 40, 42, and 46
FedEx properly objected
to these requests as overly broad. A request for production must “[d]esignate the
documents” to be produced “either by specifically describing each individual
item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).)
No. 40 demands, “All DOCUMENTS that refer to, pertain to,
relate to, and/or reference PLAINTIFF in any way.” This request is so broad that FedEx cannot
feasibly respond to it.
No. 42 demands, “Any and all DOCUMENTS, whether or not
included in PLAINTIFF’s personnel file, which in any way pertain to any of
PLAINTIFF’s complaints, grievances, and/or allegations in this case, any
DISCIPLINE given to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF's work performance while employed by
DEFENDANT, and/or PLAINTIFF’s TERMINATION.”
This request refers to multiple categories of documents within the broad
scope of those that “in any way pertain to any of plaintiff’s complaints,
grievances, and/or allegations in this case.”
Plaintiff makes numerous allegations.
Asking for documents that pertain to them “in any way” is so broad that FedEx
cannot feasibly respond.
No. 46 similarly demands, “All DOCUMENTS, letters, diaries,
notes and/or memoranda related to and/or concerning the subject matter of this
lawsuit.” That is not a reasonably
particularized category. There is no practical
way to identify which documents concern “the subject matter of this lawsuit.”
FedEx’s objections to request Nos. 40, 42, and 46 are sustained.
RFP No. 70
FedEx properly objected
to this request, which demands, “All DOCUMENTS pertaining to, evidencing,
referring to, relating to, and/or referencing any of DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENT
retention policies, policies on preserving DOCUMENTS of investigations,
policies on preserving EMAILS, policies on preserving video and/or audio
recording and any other DOCUMENT, policies on preserving DOCUMENTS of
allegations of MISTREATMENT and/or INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT, policies on
preserving DOCUMENTS of investigations of MISTREATMENT and/or INAPPROPRIATE
CONDUCT and any other DOCUMENT preservation policies.”
Plaintiff does not set
forth specific facts showing good cause for this category of documents. This request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff fails to show that retaining or destroying documents is related
to any issue in this case. FedEx’s
counsel states, “Plaintiff failed to identify a single response where FedEx
stated that a requested document could not be produced because it had been
destroyed in the ordinary course of business. Plaintiff did not identify such a response
because no such response exists - FedEx never made such a statement in response
to any of Plaintiff’s discovery requests.”
(Lindberg Decl., ¶ 41.)
FedEx’s objections to
request No. 70 are sustained.
RFP Nos. 82-87 and 91-97
FedEx
properly objected that these requests are unduly burdensome. A
party objecting based on undue burden must present “ ‘evidence showing the
quantum of work required.’ ” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3
Cal.5th 531, 549.) To sustain this
objection, the court must make “a comparative judgment that any
responsive burden would be undue or excessive, relative to the likelihood of
admissible evidence being discovered.” (Ibid.)
FedEx
establishes that responding to these requests would be a great burden. These requests seek numerous categories of
documents about the delivery trucks at plaintiff’s worksite, including
documents about mechanical problems in the trucks and documents showing which
trucks were assigned to which drivers.
FedEx’s declaration in support of its opposition states, “The FedEx
facility where Plaintiff worked employed approximately 160 couriers and used
130 vehicles to deliver and pickup packages.”
(Lindberg Decl., ¶ 44.) FedEx
estimates that responding to several of these requests would take an inordinate
amount of work. (Id., ¶¶ 49 [16
hours for No. 82], 54 [260 to 390 hours for No. 85].)
The
burden of responding to these requests about 130 vehicles greatly outweighs the
likelihood of discovering admissible evidence.
Plaintiff alleges FedEx discriminated against Black drivers by assigning
worse trucks to them. Discovery about the
condition of 130 different vehicles goes too far into the minutiae of this
allegation. Moreover, FedEx presents
evidence that plaintiff himself did not experience this alleged
discrimination. During the eight months
plaintiff drove for FedEx, he reported only a single problem with his assigned truck. (Lindberg Decl., ¶¶ 45-46, Ex. 26.)
FedEx’s objections to request Nos.
82-87 and 91-95 are sustained.
RFP Nos. 14,
37-39, 41, 62, 89, and 90
Plaintiff shows good cause to compel
further responses to these requests for production.
No.
14 demands policies for evaluating employee performance. Such documents may be relevant to show FedEx did
not follow those policies in disciplining plaintiff, which may support an
inference of intent to discriminate or retaliate.
No.
37 demands all emails between management and plaintiff. Some of the emails may contain or lead to
admissible evidence. Though broad, asking
for all emails makes producing them far easier.
The only search term required would be plaintiff’s email address.
No.
38 demands documents identifying other employees at plaintiff’s worksite,
including their names, dates of hire, race, age, gender, date of birth, and job
title. These documents may allow
plaintiff to identify witnesses or could lead to evidence regarding FedEx’s
treatment of similarly situated employees of other races.
No.
39 demands “all MEDICAL DOCUMENTS that refer to … PLAINTIFF.” Though this action is not about plaintiff’s
medical condition, there is a reasonable possibility such documents could lead
to admissible evidence.
No.
41 demands documents about “the ending of PLAINTIFF’s job.” Plaintiff alleges FedEx wrongfully terminated
him. The request is reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This category is sufficiently particularized
such that FedEx can identify the responsive documents.
No.
62 demands documents relating to “purported reasons given by PLAINTIFF … as to
why PLAINTIFF missed any work.” Absences
(or the reasons for them) may not be a central issue in this case, but these
documents nonetheless may lead to admissible evidence regarding plaintiff’s
performance and the terms and conditions of his employment.
Nos.
89 and 90 demand documents regarding other employees’ complaints about race
discrimination and FedEx’s investigations into any such complaints. These requests are reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence. These
documents may help identify other witnesses or may provide evidence supporting
an inference of intent to discriminate or retaliate.
FedEx’s
objections to request Nos. 14, 37-39, 41, 62, 89, and 90 are overruled.
Sanctions
Both parties move for monetary
sanctions against one another. “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make
the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(CCP § 2031.210(h).) Both parties
were partially successful. Even where
unsuccessful, both parties made reasonable arguments. Plaintiff and FedEx acted with substantial
justification.
Disposition
Plaintiff Bernard Smith’s motion to
compel further responses to requests for production is granted
in part as to request Nos. 14, 37-39, 41, 62, 89, and 90.
Defendant Federal Express
Corporation is ordered to provide
further verified responses without objections to requests for production Nos.
14, 37-39, 41, 62, 89, and 90 within 30 days.
Defendant Federal Express Corporation shall produce all responsive
documents concurrently with its verified written responses.