Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV30218, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30218    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 14

#10

Case Background

Plaintiffs Micaela Ochoa (“Ochoa”) and Rodney Sanders (“Sanders”) (“together Plaintiffs”) filed this employment action against defendants Harvest Farms, Inc., Brandon Marvin, and Brett Nelson on December 11, 2024. Plaintiffs assert five retaliation claims, one FEHA claim, one CFRA claim, a claim for negligent hiring/retention/supervision, a wrongful termination claim, and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

            After multiple informal discovery conferences with the Court, on March 3, 2025 Plaintiffs moved to compel further responses to discovery they propounded on Harvest Farms, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs move for the following:

            (1) further responses to Ochoa’s RFP, Set One, No. 24;

(2) further responses to Sanders’ RFP, Set One, No. 22; and

(3) a less-redacted production of Defendant’s documents Bates-numbered HF000331-334.

The Court held a third IDC on April 16, 2025, but the parties did not reach resolution on these matters either during that conference or during their telephonic conference that followed. (See 04-28-2025 Joint Statement.)

On May 27, 2025, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. On June 2, 2025, Plaintiffs replied.

Decision

            Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to Documents HF000331-334, and otherwise DENIED.

            No sanctions are imposed on either party.

Discussion

            Procedural Matters

The parties have met and conferred extensively about all of the requests in dispute. The Court commends all counsel for their commitment to informally resolving their disputes before resorting to motion practice. Any argument that any party insufficiently met and conferred cannot be taken seriously.

Defendant’s objection to Counsel’s declaration in support of Plaintiff’s reply is OVERRULED. The declaration responds to facts that have arisen since the motion and arguments raised in Plaintiff’s opposition. (Regardless, it does not change the result.)

Ochoa RFP No. 24 and Sanders RFP No. 22

Defendant argues Plaintiffs have waived their right to compel responses to Ochoa’s RFP No. 24 and Sanders’ RFP No. 22. The Court agrees.

Litigation over discovery in this case began with the parties’ stipulation to informal discovery resolution procedures on August 6, 2024.

As relevant to discovery motion deadlines, their stipulation reads:

“The parties hereby further agree that the time for making a motion to compel or other discovery motion is tolled from the date of filing of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference until (a) the request is denied or deemed denied or (b) twenty (20) days after the filing of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference, whichever is earlier, unless extended by Order of the Court.

It is the understanding and intent of the parties that this stipulation shall, for each discovery dispute to which it applies, constitute a writing memorializing a ‘specific later date to which the propounding [or demanding or requesting] party and the responding party have agreed in writing,’ within the meaning of Code Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c), 2031.320(c), and 2033.290(c).”

(08-06-2024 Stip., ¶ 5.)

As relevant to RFPs Nos. 24 and 22, informal discovery conferences proceeded as follows:

• After a brief continuance, the Court set an initial IDC for September 25, 2024. The parties filed a joint IDC statement in advance of that conference on September 13, 2024. Their joint statement preserved their dispute over RFPs Nos. 24 and 22.
• The Court continued the September 2024 IDC to an eventual date of November 20, 2024. On November 8, 2024, the parties filed a second joint IDC statement in advance of that conference. The statement did not mention RFPs Nos. 24 or 22. In an email exchange between counsel on November 6 and 7, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that Plaintiffs “agreed [a particular] ESI search would be sufficient” to satisfy RFPs Nos. 24 and 22; Defendant’s counsel did not disagree. (See Handy Decl. iso Reply, Exh. A.)
• The Court then continued the IDC to January 22, 2025. The parties filed a new joint statement on January 10, 2025. That statement, again, did not mention RFPs Nos. 24 or 22.
• The parties appeared for the January 22, 2025 IDC. On February 3, 2025, they filed a joint statement recording matters discussed at the IDC. That statement did not refer to RFPs Nos. 24 or 22.
• On February 20, 2025, the Court set a new IDC for April 16, 2025.

In their March 3, 2025 motion, Plaintiffs raised Defendant’s compliance with RFPs Nos. 22 and 24 for the first time since September 13, 2024 – or, counting the controlling date from the next superseding joint statement, since November 8, 2024.

Based on this timeline, the Court finds Plaintiffs have waived their right to compel further response to RFPs Nos. 24 and 22.

Section 2031.310(c) permits extension of the motion deadline by agreement to a specific date, in writing. The parties’ joint stipulations assume an extension when IDC proceedings are pending, but only as to “each discovery dispute to which [an IDC request] applies”.

It is apparent from the IDC filings in November 2024, January 2025, and February 2025 that no IDC after November 20, 2024, at the latest, applied to RFPs Nos. 24 and 22. Thus, any specific agreed-upon motion deadline expired, at the latest, on January 3, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel two months later.

The Court lacks power to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it is directed to RFPs Nos. 24 and 22. If the requests remained in dispute, Plaintiffs should have continued to indicate as much in its IDC filings.

As to RFPs Nos. 24 and 22, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

The Court turns to HF 000331-334, for which Plaintiffs have preserved their right to compel further response.

HF 000331-334 (Redacted RIF Lists)

The parties also dispute the propriety of redactions in Defendant’s production Bates-numbed HF 00031-334.

            In this regard, Defendant cites its employees’ rights to privacy to permit the redaction of otherwise-responsive records.

            Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 (Williams) and Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (Hill) describe the test a court should apply when limiting discovery based on privacy interests. The three-pronged Hill test, applied to discovery disputes via Williams, proceeds as follows:

“The party asserting a privacy right must establish [1] a legally protected privacy interest, [2] an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and [3] a threatened intrusion that is serious. ([Hill,] at pp. 35–37 ... .) The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Id. at pp. 37–40 ... .)”

(Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

Defendant has the burden to satisfy the three prongs of Hill, and then the Court may move on to apply a balancing test and determine whether material protected by Hill should be disclosed.

            As an initial matter, Defendant has satisfied the third prong of the Hill test. The records in question do not appear to contain any sensitive personal information about the employees in question, apart from their ages – and, arguably, their inclusion in an RIF proposal in the first place. Neither disclosure is so serious to warrant limiting Plaintiffs’ right to comprehensive discovery.

Defendant’s case law does not establish otherwise. Its cases predate Williams (and in one instance have been expressly disapproved in Williams); its unpublished trial court cases are not controlling on this Court, and in any case are unhelpful; G.M.V. v. Albasha (Orange Cty. Sup. Ct., Jan. 29, 2025) 2025 Super. LEXIS 8095 is devoid of facts, and in Guerra v. Dave & Busters Mgmt. Corp. (Orange Cty. Super. Ct., Oct. 27, 2022) 2022 Super. LEXIS 69718, the RFP at issue was significantly more invasive than the responses at issue here.

            Defendant has also not carried its burden at the final stage of the Williams scheme. Plaintiffs raise a legitimate countervailing interest to uncover evidence of similarly-situated employees who were treated differently from them in RIF decision-making. Disclosure of employees proposed for RIF bears directly on Plaintiffs’ capacity to prove their claims. Plaintiffs having carried their burden, it is Defendant’s burden as the responding party to identify feasible alternatives. Defendant has not done so. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to the production.

The Court GRANTS the motion as to HF 000331-000334, subject only to redactions to the employees’ dates of birth.

            Sanctions

            Plaintiff’s motion was both successful and unsuccessful; the Court finds sanctions for either party unwarranted.

/ / /

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to Documents HF000331-334, and otherwise DENIED.

            No sanctions are imposed on either party.