Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV31619, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Miriam Motta (“Motta”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order permitting her to conduct limited discovery related to Defendants Estrella Radio Broadcasting of California LLC’s and Estrella Media, Inc.’s (collectively, “EMI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) special motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §425.16(g); Balla v. Hall (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 692-693.)

Plaintiff filed her operative Complaint on December 27, 2023, against Defendants alleging five causes of action: (1) Violations of the Equal Pay Act; (2) Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) Sex Discrimination; (3) FEHA Retaliation; (4) FEHA Failure to Prevent; and (5) Private Attorneys’ General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have paid Plaintiff less than her male counterpart who has performed substantially similar work as Plaintiff, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar working conditions (i.e., Violation of the Equal Pay Act). (Complaint ¶13.)

On February 28, 2024, Defendants filed their special motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“anti-SLAPP Motion”), specifically, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims. (See anti-SLAPP Motion.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 5, 2024. Defendants filed their opposition on March 13, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on March 19, 2024.

All discovery proceedings in an action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of an anti-SLAPP motion. (C.C.P. §425.16(g).) The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. (Id.) The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision. (Id.)

The trial court may allow limited discovery only upon “a timely and proper showing in response to the motion to strike.” (Lafayette v. Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 868.) To establish the requisite “good cause,” the party seeking to lift the discovery stay must explain “what specific discovery was needed, and why it is needed” to oppose the pending anti-SLAPP motion. (Tutor-Saliba Corp v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 604, 619.)

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff fails to meet her burden to demonstrate why the requested discovery is needed in light of the purpose of the anti-SLAPP Motion.

The stay of discovery in an anti-SLAPP proceeding is automatic. (C.C.P. §425.16(g).) “Not only did the Legislature desire early resolution to minimize the potential costs of protracted litigation, it also sought to protect defendants from the burden of traditional discovery pending resolution of the motion.” (Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1190.) Discovery is disfavored and should not be allowed absent a showing of good cause, which Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate. (C.C.P. §425.16(g).)

First, Plaintiff seeks evidence to deny that the conversations about Plaintiff’s threatened claims, which form the basis of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, were protected activity under C.C.P. §425.16. (Decl. of Escalante ¶8.) Second, Plaintiff seeks evidence “to bolster her opposition regarding” whether “Defendants subjected her to adverse employment action” and by extension that the true reason Defendants did not give her the pay raise was because of her pay disparity complaint about the very same pay raise. (Decl. of Escalante ¶8.)

The reasons Plaintiff offers for her proposed discovery are vague and broad in scope: to explore the witness’ veracity and corroborate their testimony, to explore Defendants’ contentions or information where the witnesses lack knowledge, to “explore such things as foundational facts and the basis for any denial to the requests for admissions,” and to “discover the veracity and corroborate Defendants’ contentions.” Plaintiff’s goals and stated purposes for conducting discovery and lifting the statutory stay are not narrowly aimed at opposing the anti-SLAPP issues presented in Defendants’ motion. Further, there is no explanation of how the indicated discovery will lead to evidence permitting Plaintiff to oppose the specific matters set forth in the anti-SLAPP Motion.

Plaintiff has not provided this Court with proposed deposition notices, proposed document requests, or the other proposed written discovery sought in her Motion. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to determine whether the requested discovery actually satisfies the statutory requirements.

The anti-SLAPP Motion establishes that the communications at issue were among two individual employees: Steve Mandala and Plaintiff (in addition to settlement communications between counsel for the parties). Nevertheless, Plaintiff seeks to depose and introduce the testimony of three other employees who were not participants in the limited privileged communications at issue. There is no specific indication of the content of the requested written discovery.

Plaintiff’s Motion further seeks discovery to show that she was legally entitled to the pay raise she requested and that she is subject to disparate pay, which relates solely to her underlying equal pay claim, not her retaliation claim. Plaintiff seeks to conduct discovery to prove her underlying equal pay claim, which is not at issue in the anti-SLAPP motion. (See Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2004) Cal.App.4th 903, 922 [stating plaintiffs not entitled to discovery since they did not demonstrate facts they expected to uncover in the discovery that would negate the privilege at issue].)

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court