Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV21141, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Outfront Media, LLC’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Robert Shane Salley to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) for Request No. 15 is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further Code-Compliant responses without objections within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, on the motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $630.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Defendant Outfront Media, LLC’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Robert Shane Salley to Defendant’s General Interrogatories (Set One) for Request No. 12.6 is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further Code-Compliant responses without objections within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, on the motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $472.50. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Robert Shane Salley’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Outfront Media, LLC to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) for Request Nos. 6, 8, and 9 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses without objections within 20 days.

Plaintiff Robert Shane Salley’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant Outfront Media, LLC to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) for Request Nos. 28 and 71 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses without objections within 10 days.

Defendant Outfront Media, LLC (“Outfront”) (“Moving Defendant”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Robert Shane Salley (“Salley”) (“Plaintiff”) to its Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) to request No. 21. (Notice of Defendant MTCF; C.C.P. §§2030.300, 2030.310.) Defendant requests Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record pay monetary sanctions in the total amount of $5,355.00. (Notice of Defendant MTCF.)[1]

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to its Request for Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”) to request No. 15. (Notice of Defendant MTCF; C.C.P. §§2030.300, 2030.310.)

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff to its Request for Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (“FROG”) to request No. 12.6. (Notice of Defendant MTCF; C.C.P. §§2030.300, 2030.310.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Outfront to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) to request Nos. 6, 8, and 9. (Notice Plaintiff MTCF RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.10 et seq, 2031.300; CRC, Rules 3.1345, 3.1348.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Outfront to his Request for Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”) to request Nos. 28 and 71. (Notice Plaintiff MTCF SROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.10 et seq, 2030.300; CRC, Rules 3.1345, 3.1348.)

CRC Rule 2.109 provides, “[e]ach page must be numbered consecutively at the bottom unless a rule provides otherwise for a particular type of document. The page numbering must begin with the first page and use only Arabic numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3). The page number may be suppressed and need not appear on the first page.” (CRC, Rule 2.109.)

Defendant’s omnibus motion fails to include page numbers in violation of CRC Rule 2.109.

On October 15, 2024, this Court held an IDC, wherein this Court deemed the issues discussed in the IDC unresolved. (10/15/24 Minute Order.) Therefore, the Court will consider the instant motion.

On February 1, 2024, Defendant served its RFP on Plaintiff. (Decl. of de Leon ¶2.) Plaintiff was granted an extension to submit his responses, and on March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served his unverified responses to the discovery request. (Decl. of de Leon ¶3.) Plaintiff served Defendant with his signed verifications on April 12, 2024; however, verifications were dated March 27, 2024. (Decl. of de Leon ¶4, Exh. A.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on November 5, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 19, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

The Civil Discovery Act provides that a “party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2031.010.)

“[E]vidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447.) A party is entitled to discover “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) The phrase “subject matter” is broader than relevancy to the issues (which determines admissibility of evidence at trial). (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392.) Courts have uniformly held that, for discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.)

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to RFP Request No. 21. This request seeks production of “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS and/or writings which in any way reference or relate to any claims for state disability insurance benefits by YOU from January 1, 2019 to the present.” (Motion Defendant SS, pg. 6.)

This request seeks production of documents concerning state disability insurance benefits and are narrowly tailored to a specific issue in this case. The requested documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations that his mental health disability, in part, was a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct. (See Complaint ¶¶50-54.) Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 [stating boilerplate objections “[lack] . . . the specificity the statute mandates” and their use may be sanctionable].) To the extent documents are withheld due to an objection, the response must (1) identify with particularity the document to which the objection is being made; and (2) set forth the grounds for the objection, including the production of a privilege log if the objection is based on privilege. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP No. 21 and corresponding documents within 20 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Plaintiff is to produce a privilege log.

Under C.C.P. §2031.300(c), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (C.C.P. §2031.300(c).)

Defendant requests sanctions in the total amount of $5,355.00 against Plaintiff for the three omnibus motions. (Decl. of de Leon ¶12.) However, Defendant’s notice of motion failed to provide sufficient notice to Defendant of the amount of the sanction for the motion to compel further responses for the RFP and against whom the sanctions were requested. (C.C.P. §2023.040.) Defendant merely noticed its omnibus motion for sanctions regarding interrogatories. (Compare Notice of Defendant’s Motion [“This motion is made pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2030.310 . . ..”] with C.C.P. §2031.300(c).) Therefore, this Court cannot grant the requested sanctions.

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s RFP Nos. 21 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

On February 1, 2024, Defendant served its SROG on Plaintiff. (Decl. of de Leon ¶2.) Plaintiff was granted an extension to submit his responses, and on March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served his unverified responses to the discovery request. (Decl. of de Leon ¶3.) Plaintiff served Defendant with his signed verifications on April 12, 2024; however, verifications were dated March 27, 2024. (Decl. of de Leon ¶4, Exh. A.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on November 5, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 19, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to SROG Request No. 15. This request states, “[i]f any DOCUMENT CONCERNING YOUR claims and/or DEFENDANT’s defenses in this matter is no longer in YOUR possession, custody, or control, or has been lost, misplaced, or destroyed, IDENTIFY each such document and briefly describe why each document is no longer in your possession, custody, or control and/or how, when, and by whom it was lost, misplaced, or destroyed.” (Motion Defendant SS, pg. 4.)

This interrogatory seeks information about potentially relevant documentation that may no longer be in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, and could require third-party discovery.

Plaintiff’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co., 51 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1516.) Further, Plaintiff’s responses are evasive.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to SROG No. 15 within 20 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Plaintiff is to produce a privilege log.

Under C.C.P. §2030.300(d), “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (C.C.P. §2030.300(d).)

Defendant requests sanctions in the total amount of $5,355.00 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record for the three omnibus motions. (Decl. of de Leon ¶12.) However, Defendant requests sanctions for time spent meeting and conferring, including preparing documents for the IDC, which is part of the meet and confer process and not compensable for a motion to compel further. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $630.00 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, calculated as follows:

($315.00/hour x 2 hours to prepare motion, review response, and appear for hearing) = $630.00

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s SROG No. 15 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $630.00. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

On February 1, 2024, Defendant served its FROG on Plaintiff. (Decl. of de Leon ¶2.) Plaintiff was granted an extension to submit his responses, and on March 26, 2024, Plaintiff served his unverified responses to the discovery request. (Decl. of de Leon ¶3.) Plaintiff served Defendant with his signed verifications on April 12, 2024; however, verifications were dated March 27, 2024. (Decl. of de Leon ¶4, Exh. A.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on November 5, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 19, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to FROG Request No. 12.6. This request states:

Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report.

This interrogatory seeks information about potentially relevant reports concerning the allegations made in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to FROG No. 15 within 20 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Plaintiff is to produce a privilege log.

Defendant requests sanctions in the total amount of $5,355.00 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record for the three omnibus motions. (Decl. of de Leon ¶12.) However, Defendant requests sanctions for time spent meeting and conferring, including preparing documents for the IDC, which is part of the meet and confer process and not compensable for a motion to compel further. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $472.50 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, calculated as follows:

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Defendant’s FROG No. 12.6 is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $472.50. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff served his RFP on Defendant. (Decl. of Tojarieh ¶1, Exh. 1.) On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension until January 26, 2024, to respond to the RFP. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶2.) On February 12, 2024, after Plaintiff granted two additional extensions, Defendant

provided responses to some, but not all, of the production requests that Plaintiff propounded. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶3, Exh. 2.) Defendant refused to produce documents without an agreed-upon protective order. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶3, Exh. 2.) On February 26, 2024, the parties submitted to this Court a Stipulation and Protective Order – Confidential Designation Only, which this Court granted the same day. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶4.)

On April 29, 2024, after meeting and conferring, Defendant produced some documents. On April 30, 2024, Defendant served further responses to some production requests and produced additional documents. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶7, Exh. 5.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 11, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on December 19, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant as to RFP Request Nos. 6, 8, and 9. Request No. 6 seeks production of “[e]ach and every DOCUMENT reflecting or constituting COMMUNICATIONS between PLAINTIFF and any other PERSON who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding PLAINTIFF’S claims in this action.” (Motion Plaintiff RFP SS, pg. 2.) Request No. 8 seeks production of “[e]ach and every non-privileged DOCUMENT reflecting or constituting COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other PERSON, including, but not limited to, witnesses and co-defendants, who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding PLAINTIFF’S claims in this action.” (Motion Plaintiff RFP SS, pg. 2.) Request No. 9 seeks production of “[e]ach and every non-privileged DOCUMENT reflecting or constituting COMMUNICATIONS made by any PERSON (other than YOU or PLAINTIFF) to any other PERSON (other than YOU or PLAINTIFF) that relate to PLAINTIFF’S claims in this action.” (Motion Plaintiff RFP SS, pg. 2.)

Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co., 51 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1516.) To the extent documents are withheld due to an objection, the response must (1) identify with particularity the document to which the objection is being made; and (2) set forth the grounds for the objection, including the production of a privilege log if the objection is based on privilege. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s requested search terms is unavailing. C.C.P. §2031.310(d) provides: “In a motion under subdivision (a) relating to the production of electronically stored information, the party or affected person objecting to or opposing the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored information on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (C.C.P. §2031.310(d).) Defendant fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that the information sought is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to RFP Nos. 6, 8, and 9 and corresponding documents within 20 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 6, 8, and 9 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff served his SROG on Defendant. (Decl. of Tojarieh ¶1, Exh. 1.) On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension until January 26, 2024, to respond to the SROG. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶2.) On February 12, 2024, after Plaintiff granted two additional extensions, Defendant provided answers to the first 35 interrogatories that Plaintiff propounded and responded with boilerplate objections only to the rest. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶3, Exh. 2.)

On April 26, 2024, after meeting and conferring, Defendant served further responses to some interrogatories. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶6, Exh. 5.) On October 4, 2024, Defendant provided further responses to the interrogatories. (Decl. of de Tojarieh ¶13, Exh. 9.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 11, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on December 19, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant as to SROG Nos. 28 and 71. Request No. 28 states, “IDENTIFY each PERSON who worked in the same department or division as PLAINTIFF during the APPLICABLE TIME PERIOD.” (Motion Plaintiff SROG SS, pg. 2.)

Request No. 71 states, “IDENTIFY each PERSON who, during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, worked for YOU in California in the same position as or a position substantially similar to any of those held by PLAINTIFF.” (Motion Plaintiff SROG SS, pg. 7.)

These interrogatories seek information about potential witnesses to the conduct alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint or individuals similarly situated.

Defendant’s responses are not Code-Compliant. Defendant’s boilerplate objections are not proper. (See Korea Data Systems Co., 51 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1516.) Further, Defendant’s responses are evasive.

Accordingly, Defendant is compelled to produce Code-Compliant responses to SROG Nos. 28 and 71 within 20 days of this ruling. To the extent any responses are protected by privilege, Defendant is to produce a privilege log.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s SROG Nos. 28 and 71 is granted. Defendant is to provide further Code-Compliant responses within 20 days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes Defendant’s motion improperly combines three motions to compel further pertaining to three different discovery requests into a single motion. A motion must be brought separately against each party and discovery method at issue. The instant motion should have been filed as three separate motions and three filing fees paid. Instead, Defendant filed only one motion and paid one filing fee. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269.) Therefore, Defendant owes this Court $120.00 in filing fees.