Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV04064, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04064    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AT DEPOSITION

Date:               3/14/23 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Lylonnie Correa v. W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation et al. (22STCV04064)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation’s Motion to Compel Answers at Deposition is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Defendant W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation moves to compel answers from plaintiff Lylonnie Correa with respect to: (1) the coworker that plaintiff dated while she worked at Toys “R” Us; and (2) whether plaintiff chose not to report an instance of purported harassment right away.

With respect to the first question, this question is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) Defendant contends that the coworker from Toys “R” Us is a potential witness who could speak to whether plaintiff was offended by co-defendant Nathan Olivares’ purported harassing conduct. However, defendant fails to establish that plaintiff dated the coworker at the same time of plaintiff’s employment with defendant. Indeed, plaintiff avers that she stopped dating and communicating with the coworker at issue approximately three years before the Olivares’ conduct allegedly began. (Compare Correa Decl. ¶ 6 [dated coworker from October 2017 to January 2018] with Compl. ¶ 6 [Olivares’ purported sexual harassment began in summer 2021].)  Accordingly, the information that defendant seeks is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and protected by plaintiff’s right to privacy. (See also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Civ. Div. Rules, appen. 3.A(d)(9), Guidelines for Civility in Litigation, located at lacourt.org/courtrules/CurrentRulesAppendixPDF/Chap3Appendix3A.PDF [“Counsel should not direct a deponent to refuse to answer questions unless they seek privileged information or are manifestly irrelevant or calculated to harass”].) No further answer is required for the first question.

With respect to the second question, whether plaintiff reported an alleged instance of harassment right away is probative of whether the instance truly occurred and is therefore reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Even if defendant asked plaintiff the reasons why she did not report other instances of harassment, as plaintiff contends, defendant is entitled to ask about the timing of plaintiff’s complaints regarding each instance of alleged harassment. It cannot be said that such line of questioning was calculated to harass. A further answer is required for the second question.

Defendant also moves for an order compelling plaintiff to answer questions about documents that were requested in written discovery, but not previously produced until after her deposition. However, defendant fails to show that plaintiff failed to answer any questions regarding such documents. CCP § 2025.480(a) only allows the Court to compel an answer that plaintiff failed to answer at deposition or to compel production of documents listed in the deposition notice. If defendant wanted to ensure that it could inquire as to the content of documents, it could have filed a motion to compel further response first, obtain the requested documents, and then scheduled plaintiff’s deposition accordingly. Defendant is not entitled to an open line of questioning regarding documents not previously produced under CCP § 2025.480.

Defendant also moves for a protective order stopping conduct of counsel for plaintiff based on comments counsel for plaintiff directed toward defense counsel. It is unclear what such an order would entail. The Court declines to issue a protective order that could very well constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint of expression. (Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1141, 1159.)  That said, in connection with the instant motion, this Court has reviewed the excerpts of deposition transcripts and communications between counsel.  Counsel are admonished to conduct themselves in accordance with the guidelines for civility in litigation, as adopted by this Court.  (See LASC Local Rule 3.26 & Appendix 3.A.)

The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Lylonnie Correa is ordered to appear for deposition via videoconferencing software on ___________________ at _________. Correa is ordered to answer Question 2 set forth in defendant’s separate statement filed in support of the motion, as well as any reasonably related follow-up questions.

Given the mixed result, all requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.