Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV39552, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39552    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:52 PM on April 7, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on April 7, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email.  The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

            Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to age discrimination and harassment and failure to accommodate her disability, and retaliation for taking medical leave due to her need for cancer treatment.

Plaintiff Angelita Gavino moves to compel production of documents at the deposition of Joseph Yuen and requests the imposition of sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Angelita Gavino’s motion to compel documents at deposition of Joseph Yuen and request for sanctions is DENIED in its entirety.

            Defendant’s counter-request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,575. Although the motion was filed on the same day that the Court entered its order regarding Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication, Plaintiff should have thereafter withdrawn the motion to compel. 

ANALYSIS

Motion To Compel Production of Documents At Deposition

Discussion

            Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.480(a), Plaintiff seeks to compel deponent Joseph Yuen to produce documents which he failed to produce at his November 21, 2024 deposition.

Civ Proc. Code § 2025.480 provides in pertinent part:

(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(Civ., Proc. Code., § 2025.480(a) & (b).)

            If a deponent fails to approve a deposition transcript within 30 days after the deposition officers sends written notice to the deponent and all parties attending the deposition that the original transcript is available for reading, correcting and signing, it shall be deemed approved. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.520(a), (b), (f).) Here, the certified copy of Yuen’s November 21, 2024 was received by Plaintiff on January 2, 2025, per Page 9:24-25 of the motion. The motion was filed and served on February 28, 2025, which is within the 60-day deadline.

            Notably, Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.480 only requires a showing of good cause for production of electronically stored information from a source that is not reasonably accessible. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2025.480(e), (f).) However, as Defendants points out in the opposition, on February 28, 2025, the Court entered its order granting Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to all causes of action except the third cause of action for harassment in violation of FEHA and the seventh cause of action for failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA. The harassment claims remained viable because of Matt Tran’s hostile age-related comments in Plaintiff’s presence.

            Narrowing viable claims also limits discovery topics. See, e.g., Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 340: “By bringing the anti-SLAPP motion, defendants thus successfully narrowed the scope of the lawsuit, limiting discovery, reducing potential recoverable damages, and altering the settlement posture of the case.”) As such, any documents which are not related to the remaining claims are not discoverable unless reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2017.010.)

            Per the motion, Joseph Yuen was one of Plaintiff’s supervisors in the accounting department at the ATE LAX branch. (Motion, Page 3:2-3.) In this regard, the following requests for production do not appear to be relevant or discoverable to the remaining age harassment claims: Requests For Production Nos. 1 – 26.

            As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents at deposition and request for sanctions is DENIED in its entirety.

            Defendant’s counter-request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,575 (3 hours at $525/hour—Decl. of Joseph Pelochino, ¶ 10). Although the motion was filed on the same day that the Court entered its order regarding Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication, Plaintiff should have thereafter withdrawn the motion to compel.