Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV44876, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44876    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 74

Carrillo et al. v. Longwood Management Corp., et al.

Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a Private Attorney General Act action (PAGA).

Plaintiff Phellippe Carrillo and 15 other employees (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against defendants Artesia Healthcare, Inc. and 13 other employers (Defendants). 

On August 20, 21, 22 and 23, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendants with 80 discovery requests. 

Defendants now move for a protective order to sequence discovery.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            The Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections to Shera Kwak’s Declaration.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Judicial Notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.020, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION

            Defendants move to sequence discovery predicated on Plaintiffs’ need to articulate an individual PAGA claim as a threshold to pursuing representative claims.  (Labor Code, § 2699, subd. (c)(1).)  This action contains 16 different employees who allege claims against 14 employers.  Defendants seek to sequence discovery to allow for adjudication of the individual claims before proceeding to discovery regarding the approximately 7,689 employees employed during the PAGA period.  (Kwak Decl., ¶ 9.)  The Court finds this reasonable given the expansive nature of the discovery and the dependence on the success of individual actions.

            Defendants have provided substantial discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ individual and representative PAGA claims.  (Kwak Decl., ¶ 8.)  Defendants specifically object to responding to Request for Production Nos. 12, 15, 16, 18 and 34; Special Interrogatory, Set One, No. 1; and Special Interrogatory, Set Two, No. 32.  Defendants believe that completing these discovery requests will take hundreds to thousands of hours because many of the requested documents are held in hard copy or pdf format.  (Kwak Decl., ¶ 28.)  Defendants estimate that it may take up to 23,067 hours.  (Kwak Decl., ¶ 28.)  Parties both cite Williams v. Superior Court as guidance regarding the motion. 

            In Williams, the Court denied an employer’s objection to discovery of the contact information of thousands of employees because the employer failed to show evidence of the burden or seek to sequence discovery.  (3 Cal.5th 531, 549-50.)  Here, Defendants provide evidence of the work needed and are seeking a sequencing order, rather than simply objecting to the discovery.  The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to find that discovery of the representative claims would be substantially burdensome.  Additionally, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to sequence discovery to postpone discovery responses regarding the representative claims until adjudication of the individual claims.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order.  The Court orders that Defendants’ obligation to provide verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 12, 15, 16, 18 and 34; Special Interrogatory, Set One, No. 1; and Special Interrogatory, Set Two, No. 32 is suspended pending the Court’s adjudication of Plaintiffs’ individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act. 

            Defendants to give notice.