Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV30445, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30445    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 74

Ventrone v. Amazon.com, Inc et al.

Plaintiff Michael John Ventrone’s Motion to Compel Further

BACKGROUND 

            This motion arises from an employment and wrongful termination dispute.

            Plaintiff Michael John Ventrone (Plaintiff) alleges defendants Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Com Services, Inc.; Amazon LAX5; Amazon LGB6; Golden State FC, LLC; Leslie Jones; and Sarah Martinez discriminated against him for his military status and disability.

            On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents, set 8 against defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC (Defendant).

            On November 27, 2023, Defendant served only objections to the requests at issue.

            On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court denies Defendant’s evidentiary objections.

LEGAL STANDARD

The propounding party may bring motions to compel inspection or further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  

            California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery, including motions to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents, contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.  (CRC, rule 3.1345(a).)

Meet and Confer

            This motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet-and-confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).)  “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate… involves the exercise of discretion.”  (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.)  “The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.  Judges have broad powers and responsibility to determine what measure and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.”  (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

            The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further is timely.  Plaintiff made a good-faith effort to meet and confer before filing the motion.  (Lim Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 4.) 

            Plaintiff requests that the Court compel further responses to Request for Production (RfP) Nos. 57-72.

Requests for Production Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72

            Requests for Production Nos. 57-72 request the Ivy and Lift documents for eight (8) non-party employees.

            Defendant objects to the RfPs on the grounds that the requests are (1) overbroad; (2) unduly burdensome; (3) not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence; and (4) a violation of individuals’ right to privacy.  Further, in the opposition, Defendant objects on the ground that (5) the requests are irrelevant.

            As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s objections that the RfP requires “the compilation, abstract, audit or summary”, and “exceeds the permissible scope… and/or any other applicable court rules” are facially impermissible boilerplate objections which the Court disregards. (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.)

            The respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  Given this obligation, Defendant defends its objections to Plaintiff’s RfPs on the grounds that the requests are (1) irrelevant, (2) unlikely to result in admissible evidence and (3) an invasion of privacy.

            First, the Court finds Defendant’s contention that the discovery is irrelevant unavailing.  Defendant states in its response to Form Interrogatory 201.1 that “Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment for performance reasons.”  (Lim Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 8:4.)  Defendant states that these performance issues were Plaintiff’s “disrespectful conduct and overt hostility towards his colleagues…”  (Lim Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 10:24-26.)  Defendant does not allege that information regarding an employee’s interactions with colleagues would not be contained in performance reviews.  Therefore, the performance reviews of similarly situated employees would be relevant to Defendant’s claims that Plaintiff was terminated for performance reasons.

            Defendant’s contention that the performance reviews are unlikely to lead to admissible evidence is similarly unavailing.  Defendant alleges that the documents requested would not provide proper comparative evidence for the purpose of disparate treatment because the employees either (1) did not share Plaintiff’s position, (2) did not report to the same supervisor, or (3) were not engaged in similar conduct.  The question of if the employees were in a “comparable factual setting” is not a legal conclusion, but instead is a factual one which may lead to admissible evidence.  (Mixon v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm., 192 Cal.App.3d 1306, 1317; Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663, 689.)  Although Defendant alleges that there are some material differences between Plaintiff and the employees whose files Plaintiff seeks, Defendant does not provide authority that comparator evidence must involve employees in exactly the same position. 

            Finally, Defendant contends that the requests invade the privacy interests of the third-party employees. Privacy rights exist in personnel files.  (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3 516, 526.)  But Plaintiff points out, and Defendant does not address, that there is a protective order in place for documents deemed confidential for state or federal privacy protections.  (See Stipulated Protective Order, filed 12/13/22.)  Defendant has the burden to establish the extent and seriousness of the privacy invasion, which allows the court to weigh the countervailing interests that the moving party identifies.  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)  Defendant establishes that a privacy interest exists but fails to show the extent or seriousness of the invasion or address why the protective order is insufficient to mitigate the privacy concerns.  Therefore, Defendant has not met its burden of establishing an unwarranted invasion of privacy.  (Ibid.)

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, set 8.