Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV25000, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25000    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION TO: (1) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; (2) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET ONE; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT JOSIE WILLIAMS TO: (1)FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET ONE AND (2) FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE

Date:               8/30/22 (9:30 AM)                                           

Case:               Rosemary Ramos v. Human Services Association et al. (21STCV25000)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’ Motion to Compel Defendant Human Services Association to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Reservation ID:  616825783059) is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’ Motion to Compel Defendant Human Services Association to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One (Reservation ID: 628951939310) is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’ Motion to Compel Defendant Human Services Association to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One (Reservation ID: 133826808813) is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’ Motion to Compel Defendant Josie Williams to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One (Reservation ID: 011178995475) is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’ Motion to Compel Defendant Josie Williams to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One (Reservation ID: 866285321296) is DENIED as MOOT.

On May 17, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the instant motions to August 30, 2022 to allow the parties to meet and confer. The Court ordered plaintiff Rosemary Ramos to serve and file supplemental briefs before August 5, 2022 and defendants to file supplemental responses before August 19, 2022.

After reviewing the supplemental briefing, the Court rules as follows:

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos moved to compel further responses from defendant Human Services Association to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 2-61, 66-93, and 95-103.

After reviewing supplemental responses served on May 12, 2022 (Voskanyan Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1), the following requests remain at issue: 47, 49, 50, 51, 67, 71, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, and 100.

Based on the parties’ resolution of the discovery disputes, the motion is DENIED as MOOT as to Request Nos. 2-46, 48, 52-61, 66, 68-70, 72-80, 84, 87-93, 95-99, and 101-103.

The Court notes that, even though supplemental responses were served, the Court has discretion to review the supplemental responses to determine whether they are sufficient, rather than require plaintiff to further meet and confer and file a new motion to compel further response. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 [“Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case”].)

Request No. 47 asks defendant to produce “[e]ach DOCUMENT or set of DOCUMENTS that shows the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals whose employment DEFENDANT involuntarily terminated during the past ten years.”

The identities of potential “me too” witnesses are relevant to determine whether defendant has the practice of terminating the employment of individuals with disabilities. (Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 740, 765, quoting Heyne v. Caruso (9th Cir.1995) 69 F.3d 1479 [“‘It is clear that an employer's conduct tending to demonstrate hostility towards a certain group is both relevant and admissible where the employer's general hostility towards that group is the true reason behind firing an employee who is a member of that group’”].) Contact information about witnesses is an essential part of pretrial discovery. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-50.) Privacy concerns do not prevent the disclosure of the contact information of witnesses. (Puerto, 158 Cal.App.4th at 1256–57 [“Generally, witnesses are not permitted to decline to participate in civil discovery, even when the information sought from them is personal or private”].)

However, as the requests are phrased, plaintiff is seeking documents that are protected by privacy rights, including personnel files and payroll records containing the names and addresses of individuals whose employment was terminated. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528, disapproved of on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 [personnel files protected by constitutional right to privacy]; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 8:303, citing Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550 [“A right of privacy exists as to a party's confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant to the litigation”].) Moreover, because the events underlying this action are alleged to have begun in December 2018 with plaintiff’s surgery (FAC ¶ 18), the ten-year period encompassed by this request is overbroad. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 47, but a sufficient answer shall consist of a table listing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals whose employment defendant Human Services Association involuntarily terminated in the past five years.

Request No. 49 asks defendant to produce “[e]ach DOCUMENT or set of DOCUMENTS that shows the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals who have made formal or informal complaints of harassment, retaliation, discrimination, or wrongful termination of employment to the above-captioned defendants during the past ten years.” Request No. 50 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll DOCUMENTS that show the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals who have made formal or informal complaints to DEFENDANT concerning their disabilities during the past ten years.” Request No. 51 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll DOCUMENTS that show the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals who have made formal or informal complaints to DEFENDANT concerning their family and medical leaves during the past ten years.”

For Request Nos. 49-51, defendant responded: “Responding Party has produced the requested contact information, to the extent possible, in its response to Form Interrogatory 209.2.” For the reasons stated above, the requests implicate documents that are protected by the constitutional right to privacy, and the ten-year time encompassed by the request is overbroad. Nevertheless, the motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Request Nos. 49-51. Further responses are required which expressly state that the contact information of the individuals described in each request are provided, including individuals who made formal or informal complaints. Production of a table listing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals described in each request for the past five years shall suffice.

Request No. 67 asks defendant to produce “[e]ach DOCUMENT showing the exact nature of each formal and informal claim of harassment and any notice of inappropriate work place behavior disclosed to DEFENDANT concerning any person who ever supervised Plaintiff.” This request calls for “me too” testimony that is probative of the hostility that individuals who supervised plaintiff may have had toward protected groups. The request is appropriately limited to individuals who supervised plaintiff. The motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 67.

Request No. 71 asks defendant to produce “[e]ach DOCUMENT or set of DOCUMENTS that indicates who had authority at HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION to HIRE, TRANSFER, SUSPEND, LAY OFF, RE-CALL, PROMOTE, DISCHARGE, ASSIGN, REWARD, DIRECT, ADJUST GRIEVANCES of, or DISCIPLINE Plaintiff, Rosemary Ramos.” Defendant responded: “The individuals who had authority for all of the above referenced actions were Leticia Chacon and Ricardo Mota.” This response is sufficient. As phrased, the request asks defendant to produce documents protected by the right to privacy, including personnel files and payroll records of Leticia Chacon or Ricardo Mota. Such documents are not probative of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims in this action. The motion as to Request No. 71 is DENIED.

Request No. 81 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll DOCUMENTS and communications (including text messages and e-mail) relating to Plaintiff between Leticia Chacon and Josie Williams.” Request No. 82 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll DOCUMENTS and communications (including text messages and e-mail) relating to Plaintiff between Leticia Chacon and Ricardo Mota.” Request No. 83 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll DOCUMENTS and communications (including text messages and e-mail) relating to Plaintiff between Ricardo Mota and Josie Williams.” Request No. 85 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll documents and communications (including text messages and e-mail) between Plaintiff and Ricardo Mota.” Request No. 86 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll documents and communications (including text messages and e-mail) between Plaintiff and Leticia Chacon.”

For Request Nos. 81-83, 85, and 86, defendant responded: “Upon a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has no responsive documents in its possession, custody or control due to the retention period of its emails.” These responses are insufficient because defendant provides no reason why it cannot produce the requested communications occurring through means other than e-mail. (See CCP § 2031.230 [“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party”].)  The motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 81-83, 85, and 86.

Request No. 100 asks defendant to produce “[a]ll DOCUMENTS that indicates the name, address, and telephone number of each Board Member who has served on Human Services Association’s Board of Directors from January 1, 2018 through the present.” Defendant responded, “Cesar Zaldivar-Motts, Olga Velez Sarabia, Robert Perez, Connie Arellano, Dhyanesh Bhatt, Ronald Garcia, Brenda Ortega, Nancy Sarinana and Elizabeth Rodarte, Esmeralda Diaz, Lupita Garza, Nancy Sarinana are the individuals who served on the board from 1/1/18 to the present, all can be contacted through counsel for Responding Party.”

This response is sufficient. As phrased, the request calls for documents that are protected by the right to privacy, including personnel files or financial records. Such documents are not probative of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims in this action. Moreover, defendant is not obligated to give the contact information of these individuals because as directors, their conduct could potentially render defendant liable. (See Civ. Code § 3294(b).) Accordingly, the Board of Directors are party witnesses who plaintiff is not entitled to contact directly. The motion as to Request No. 100 is DENIED.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant Human Services Association is ordered to serve further verified code-compliant responses, without objection, to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 47, 49, 50, 51, 67, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86. and produce documents in accordance with the ruling set forth above.

Based on the privacy interests implicated in plaintiff’s requests and overbroad time frames, defendant Human Services Association opposed this motion with substantial justification. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

II.                MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION; (2) FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT FROM DEFENDANT HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION; (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT JOSIE WILLIAMS; AND (4) FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE FROM DEFENDANT JOSIE WILLIAMS

In plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’s supplemental brief, plaintiff states that defendants Human Services Association and Josie Williams’ supplemental responses to their respective Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One are sufficient. (Pl. Supp. Brief at 1:26-28).

Accordingly, the following motions are DENIED as MOOT: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, from Defendant Human Services Association; (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One, from Defendant Human Services Association; (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, from Defendant Josie Williams; and (4) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One, from Defendant Josie Williams.

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1348(a)].) Because plaintiff was required to file these motions to obtain adequate responses, the Court imposes monetary sanctions in the following amounts against the following individuals and/or entities with respect to the following sets of discovery:

• $1,185.00 against defendant Human Services Association and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for Form Interrogatories-General, Set One (based on 2 hours for preparing the motion and reply and 0.5 hours for continued meeting and conferring and review of supplemental responses at an hourly rate of $450.00 [instead of the total 7 hours counsel claims for preparing the papers and attending the hearing], plus $60.00 for the filing fee)

• $1,185.00 against defendant Human Services Association and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One (based on 2 hours for preparing the motion and reply and 0.5 hours for continued meeting and conferring and review of supplemental responses at an hourly rate of $450.00 [instead of the total 8 hours counsel claims for preparing the papers and attending the hearing], plus $60.00 for the filing fee)

• $1,185.00 against defendant Josie Williams and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for Form Interrogatories-General, Set One (based on 2 hours for preparing the motion and reply and 0.5 hours for continued meeting and conferring and review of supplemental responses at an hourly rate of $450.00 [instead of the total 6 hours counsel claims for preparing the papers and attending the hearing], plus $60.00 for the filing fee)

• $1,410.00 against defendant Josie Williams and counsel of record, jointly and severally, for Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One (based on 2.5 hours for preparing the motion and reply and 0.5 hours for continued meeting and conferring and review of supplemental responses at an hourly rate of $450.00 [instead of the total 6.5 hours counsel claims for preparing the papers and attending the hearing], plus $60.00 for the filing fee)

Monetary sanctions shall be paid to counsel for plaintiff within thirty (30) days hereof.