Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCV27333, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV27333, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27333 Hearing Date: April 1, 2025 Dept: 14

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that she was passed over for promotion, and ultimately fired, because she rejected the romantic advances of her immediate superior.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Discrimination, (2) Harassment, (3) FEHA Retaliation, (4) Failure to Prevent, (5) Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation, (6) Wrongful Termination, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (8) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention, (9) Unfair Competition, and (10) Declaratory Relief against Defendants Vevo LLC (“Vevo”), Jesse Judelman (“Judelman”), Andrea Zapata (“Zapata”), and DOES 1-20.

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her seventh cause of action, without prejudice.

In October and November 2024, the parties participated in informal discovery conferences.

On December 16 and 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed five motions to compel further.

On February 26, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to continue trial.

On March 7 and 18, 2025, Defendants filed oppositions to the motions to compel further.

On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed replies.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves to compel the following:

Defendant Vevo’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (FROGs) and Requests for Production (RPDs), both set one.

Defendant Judelman’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (FROGs) and Requests for Production (RPDs), both set one.

Defendant Zapata’s further responses to Requests for Production (RPDs).

Plaintiff moves to continue Zapata’s motion for summary judgment to May 23, 2025.

Defendants move to continue trial to December 1, 2025.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further discovery are GRANTED in full against Vevo, Judelman, and Zapata.

Trial is continued to February 23, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. and FSC is set for February 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The motion for summary judgment will be heard on January 21, 2026. The opposition and reply dates are to track the new hearing date.

The Court awards Plaintiff Andraiah Lugo a reduced amount of $11,550 for 15 hours of attorney time at a rate of $750 per hour and five filing fees to be paid by Defendants Vevo, Judelman, and Zapata within 30 days of this order.

Discussion

1. Motions to compel further discovery

Plaintiff moves to compel further discovery from Defendants Vevo, Judelman, and Zapata. The Court notes that Plaintiff generally argues Defendants improperly answered some discovery requests purporting to have excluded privileged materials. Plaintiff did not seek privileged materials and Defendants did not identify which materials it alleges were privileged. Defendants need not produce privileged materials. However, if Defendants withheld documents which were not privileged, Defendants must produce the documents or information as described below.

a. Defendant Vevo

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel Vevo’s further responses to FROG Nos. 201.1, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.2, 211.1, 215.1, and 217.1.

FROG 201.1 and 201.4

FROG 201.1 states:

Was the EMPLOYEE involved in a TERMINATION? If so:

(a) state all reasons for the EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION;

(b) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who participated in the TERMINATION decision;

(c) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who provided any information relied upon the TERMINATION decision; and

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS relied upon in the TERMINATION decision.

FROG 201.4 is identical to 201.1 except that it seeks information about adverse employment actions.

Vevo responded with boilerplate objections and provided an answer stating Defendant Zapata made the decision to terminate Plaintiff with support from Kevin McGurn and Jesse Judelman. Plaintiff argues that a further response is necessary because Vevo failed to provide contact information for Kevin McGurn. The contact information is necessary to allow Plaintiff to serve a subpoena on McGurn because Defendants refused to stipulate to produce witnesses at trial without the need for a subpoena. Additionally, Vevo’s response stated account executives and sales directors provided information to Zapata, who used the information to make her decision to terminate Plaintiff. Vevo argues a further response is not necessary because McGurn may be contacted through counsel. Additionally, Vevo argues information about the account executives and sales directors is not necessary and would violate the employees’ privacy rights.

The Court finds that Vevo failed to respond to FROGs 201.1 and 201.4 because the interrogatories expressly requests the address and telephone number of all persons who were involved in the termination decision and the information is necessary to allow Plaintiff to serve subpoenas. Even if those individuals are represented, Defendant refused to stipulate to produce those individuals at trial without a subpoena. Therefore, the contact information is still necessary to allow Plaintiff to serve the subpoenas.

Additionally, the account executives and sales directors were involved in the decision to terminate because Zapata based her decision on their performance under Plaintiff’s management. Therefore, Vevo failed to respond to FROGs 201.1 and 201.4 by failing to identify and provide contact information for these individuals.

Vevo is ordered to file a supplemental response containing McGurn’s address and phone number, identifying the account executives and sales managers referenced in Vevo’s responses, and containing contact information for the account executives and sales managers.

FROGs 201.5 and 201.6

These interrogatories ask whether any person was hired to replace Plaintiff or perform her job duties after her termination or demotion. The interrogatories request the person’s name, job title, qualifications, address, job title, and date of hiring.

Vevo responded that Pierre Coleman was promoted to Director of Sales and stated he may be contacted through counsel. Again Defendants refused to stipulate to produce witnesses without a subpoena. These FROGs required Defendants to provide contact information. Therefore, Vevo failed to adequately respond to these interrogatories.

Vevo is ordered to provide Coleman’s address.

FROGs 207.2, 215.1

The parties’ dispute over these interrogatories is again over contact information. The Court finds Vevo failed to respond to this interrogatory because it only provided phone numbers. Vevo is ordered to provide addresses for Alan Price, Jeff Skaggs, Hilary McPadden, Kevin McGurn and Jennifer Larrabee.

FROG 211.1

Identify each type of BENEFIT to which the EMPLOYEE would have been entitled, from the date of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION to the present, if the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION had not happened and the EMPLOYEE had remained in the same job position. For each type of benefit, state the amount the EMPLOYER would have paid to provide the benefit for the EMPLOYEE during this time period and the value of the BENEFIT to the EMPLOYEE.

Vevo replied with boilerplate objections and responded “Defendant refers to the benefits section within its employee handbook.”

The Court finds that Vevo failed to respond to this interrogatory by providing an evasive response that does not state the amount Vevo would have paid to provide the benefits described and the value of the benefits to Plaintiff. Vevo is ordered to provide a complete response.

FROG 217.1

This interrogatory requests information about any responses to requests for admission which were not unqualified admissions.

RFA 1: Vevo’s response contained inconsistent dates for Plaintiff’s employment. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response correcting the inconsistency.

RFA 8: Vevo’s response to this RFA was not an unqualified response. Vevo failed to address this RFA in its response to FROG 217.1. Vevo must file a supplemental response addressing RFA 8.

RFAs 13-14: Vevo’s responses stated that Plaintiff did not complaint to Jeff Skaggs about Judelman’s alleged harassment. However, the RFA requests information about whether Plaintiff disclosed the harassment to Skaggs, which is not the same as a mere complaint. Vevo is ordered to file a supplemental response addressing these RFAs.

RFA 34: Vevo’s response failed to answer subpart (b) of the interrogatory by failing to set forth facts supporting its denial of the RFA. Vevo is ordered to file a supplemental response.

RFA 35: Vevo’s response stated Plaintiff was not the only woman of color who managed individuals. However, the RFA requested information about whether Plaintiff was the only woman of color in management. Whether Plaintiff was the only woman of color in a management position is different from whether any other women of color managed individuals. Vevo must provide a supplemental response.

Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel Vevo’s further responses to RPD Nos. 4-9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 31-37.

RPD No. 7

This RPD requests Plaintiff’s personnel file, including her job duties at all times while employed, performance reviews, wages, salary, and bonus payments. Plaintiff alleges Vevo only produced onboarding documents and failed to produce Plaintiff’s wage statements or any other evidence of her wages, as well as Plaintiff’s performance reviews. Vevo argues that it produced emails showing Plaintiff’s deficient performance and that the wage statements are not part of the personnel files request.

The Court finds Vevo failed to produce the documents requested. Although Vevo produced onboarding documents and some emails about Plaintiff’s performance, Vevo did not produce the other documents requested. Vevo did not allege that other documents do not exist such as performance evaluations and wage statements. Vevo is unreasonably mistaken that the wage statements were not part of this request. Vevo is ordered to produce Plaintiff’s full personnel file.

RPD No. 8

This RPD requests all documents and communications related to commendations, honors, and recognitions provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges Defendant produced four pages of emails related to Plaintiff’s termination and no more. Vevo argues that the term “communications” was not reasonably particularized. Vevo offered to complete an ESI search to search for responsive documents.

The Court disagrees that the request was not reasonably particularized. The RPD is straightforward and requests communications about commendations, honors, and recognitions provided to Plaintiff. The fact that Vevo offered to perform an ESI search shows that Vevo did not make a reasonable inquiry to locate these documents when the request was first propounded. This conduct is unreasonable. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD No. 9

This RPD requests documents and communications about notes, emails, or other documents created by employees, supervisors, or colleagues about Plaintiff during the relevant time period. Vevo responded with objections, arguing the RPD seeks irrelevant information, is vague, is overbroad, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Additionally, Vevo argues the documents sought are privileged and seek confidential or proprietary business information.

The Court finds that the documents sought are relevant to each of Plaintiff’s claims. Additionally, the request is straightforward and properly limited in time. The Court finds that the request is not unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Moreover, Vevo fails to explain how the request seeks privileged or proprietary information. The Court finds that the RPD does not seek privileged or proprietary information. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD No. 11

This RPD requests all documents relating to any work rules during Plaintiff’s employment. Vevo responded by producing its anti-discrimination, retaliation, and harassment policy and agreeing to produce its employee handbook. The Court finds that Vevo failed to respond to this RPD. Although Vevo argues the request is vague and overbroad, the Court disagrees. The request is properly limited to Plaintiff’s employment. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD Nos. 13, 14,

With respect to these requests, Plaintiff argues Vevo’s responses did not state whether Vevo intended to comply in whole or in part, and instead merely identified certain documents it agreed to produce. The Court agrees that these are not code-compliant responses. Vevo is ordered to provide supplemental responses.

RPD 16

This RPD requests documents related to Vevo’s decisions or considerations of Plaintiff’s staffing requests for her sales team. Vevo objected to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant. However, as Plaintiff points out, the information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that her staffing requests were denied in retaliation. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD No. 17

This RPD requests documents that refer to, reflect, or evidence any complaints against Defendant Judelman. Vevo responded that it would produce an April 12, 2021 letter. Plaintiff alleges this response is not true because there was an investigation about Plaintiff’s complaint against Judelman. Vevo does not deny that further documents about the alleged investigation exist. Vevo merely argues that it would be unduly burdensome to search for responsive documents. Again, the Court disagrees. Vevo also argues that Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD Nos. 19, 20, 22

These RPDs request documents related to communications and records regarding allegations set forth in the Complaint. Plaintiff argus that Vevo’s response lacks any documents about Plaintiff’s demotion. Vevo argues it has already produced all non-privileged documents in its possession. However, based Vevo’s other representations, it is apparent to this Court that Vevo did not make reasonable efforts to perform a search of its records before responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Therefore, Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response and performing a reasonable search of its records.

RPD No. 24, 25

This RPD requests the identities of employees who worked on Plaintiff’s sales teams. Vevo argues that the information is irrelevant and a violation of employee privacy. The Court finds the information is relevant because Defendant Zapata made her decision to terminate Plaintiff because of her sales team’s underperformance. Therefore, their identities are necessary to determine whether the reason for her termination was in fact the team’s underperformance. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD No. 28

This RPD requests any and all photographs of Plaintiff taken by Vevo. Plaintiff argues the discovery is necessary because Plaintiff requires photos because her appearance is at issue. Vevo argues that the request is overbroad and it would be unduly burdensome for Vevo to review photos to find photos of Plaintiff that are not relevant to this action. Although this request may produce photos that are irrelevant, it is also reasonable to infer that if Vevo kept photos of Plaintiff for reasons related to her employment, it could tend to support her claims that she suffered discrimination based on her race. Thus, this request will be limited to photographs Vevo took or kept in relation to Plaintiff’s employment. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD Nos. 31-36

These RPDs request emails which reference Plaintiff’s termination. Although Vevo alleges the requests are overbroad and irrelevant, the Court disagrees. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

RPD No. 37

This RPD requests all text messages between Zapata and Judelman during the relevant time period. The Court finds this request is overbroad because it encompasses information that has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s clams. The request must thus be limited to texts about Plaintiff. Vevo is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

b. Defendant Judelman

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Judelman’s further responses to FROG Nos. 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 4.1, 12.1, 13.1, 16.1, and 17.1. Plaintiff represents on reply that FROG 17.1 and 13.1 are resolved.

FROG No. 1.1 is again a dispute over contact information. Judelman is ordered to provide a supplemental response for the same reasons as above.

FROG Nos. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7 request Judelman’s personal information, such as date and place of birth as well as other information. As Plaintiff points out, the information is relevant to allow Plaintiff to conduct further investigation into Judelman. Although FROGs 2.2, 2.5, and 2.7 have been resolved, 2.3 has not. The Court finds the information is relevant. Judelman is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

FROG 4.1 seeks information about any insurance policy which may cover damages arising from the subject incident. Although Judelman argues that evidence of insurance coverage is not admissible for establishing liability, that does not mean the information is not discoverable. As Plaintiff points out, Plaintiff is entitled to discover insurance information. Judelman is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

FROG Nos. 12.1, 13.1, and 16.1 request the identities and contact information for any person who witnessed or contributed to the subject incident. Judelman responded that the interrogatory is not applicable, which is not a code-compliant response under Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.210(a). Judelman was required to provide an answer, exercise the option to produce writings, or an objection. If Judelman does not believe there were any witnesses to the incidents described in the Complaint, Judelman’s response should have said so. A denial of the allegations of the complaint and a statement that the interrogatory is not applicable is not an answer. Judelman is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

Requests for Production

The Court notes that no opposition separate statement was filed as to the requests for production propounded on Judelman. The Court also notes the separate statement that was meant to be filed with the moving papers was filed late on March 24, 2025. Plaintiff represents on reply that the disputes as to RPD Nos. 1, 4-20, and 25-28 are resolved. This leaves Request Nos. 2-3, 24, 21, and 23.

RPD Nos. 2-3

These RPDs request all documents Judelman relied on to prepare his responses to FROGs and RFAs. Judelman responded with boilerplate objections. The objections are without merit for the same reasons described above. Because Judelman essentially made no response, he is ordered to file a supplemental response.

RPD Nos. 21, 23, and 24

These RPDs request all text messages between Judelman, Zapata, Jeff Skaggs, and to anyone regarding Plaintiff. As discussed above, the request for all text messages between Judelman, Zapata, and Jeff Skaggs is overbroad. The request is thus limited to texts between these individuals and anyone about Plaintiff. Judelman is ordered to provide a supplemental response.

c. Defendant Zapata

The Court notes there is no reply as to the motion against Defendant Zapata. The reply filed on March 24, 2025 is actually another copy of the reply regarding the motions against Vevo. Plaintiff moves to compel Zapata’s further responses to RPD Nos. 1 and 20-22.

RPD 1

These RPDs request all documents Zapata referred to in her responses to FROGs. Zapata responded with boilerplate objections which are without merit. Zapata must provide a supplemental response.

RPDs 20-22

These RPDs concern text messages between Zapata, Judelman, and Plaintiff. Additionally, RPD 22 requests text between Zapata and any person about Plaintiff. For the same reasons discussed above, these RPDs must be limited to texts about Plaintiff. Zapata must provide a supplemental response.

d. Sanctions

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further were largely granted. Additionally, Defendants unreasonably failed to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, requiring substantial court intervention. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff sanctions for Defendants’ discovery abuse. However, over $4,000 per motion is excessive because the motions were substantially similar. The Court awards a reduced amount of $11,550 for 15 hours of attorney time at a rate of $750 per hour and five filing fees.

2. Motions to continue trial and MSJ

In light of the delay in discovery caused by the above discovery disputes, the Court finds that good cause exists to continue trial and Zapata’s motion for summary judgment.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motions to compel further discovery are GRANTED in full against Vevo, Judelman, and Zapata.