Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV19601, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19601    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action against Defendants California Eye Specialists Medical Group, Inc.; California Eye Care, Managed Eye Care Specialist, A Medical Group, Inc.; and California Eye Management Services, LP. Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on her pregnancy and various wage violations.  

            On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant three motions to compel further responses from each of the Defendants as to Requests for Production Set One. Defendants filed their oppositions on October 17, 2023. Plaintiff filed replies on October 20, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

            A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Roshanian Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Discovery Requests at Issue

a. RFP No. 3

            RFP No. 3 requests all non-privileged communications between Defendants and any person (other than defense counsel) concerning the claims alleged in the complaint. Defendants objected that the request is vague, overly burdensome, and lacks foundation. In opposition, Defendants argue that the request is vague because it is unclear what claims are alleged in the complaint. Defendants further argue that “communications” may be construed broadly and lead to undue burden.

            Defendants’ objections are without merit. Defendants have access to Plaintiff’s complaint and are fully aware of what claims are alleged. Therefore, the request is not vague. The request is not overbroad or unduly burdensome because it is limited to non-privileged communications concerning the claims at issue. A further response is required.  

b. RFP Nos. 12-13

            RFP Nos. 12 and 13 request all text and email messages sent and received to third parties concerning Plaintiff. Defendants objected that the request is vague and burdensome, unlimited as to time, and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants argue that there is no evidence Defendants communicated with third parties about Plaintiff.  

            The request is sufficiently clear to warrant a response. The request is properly limited to texts or emails about Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not required to separately prove the existence of responsive documents before Defendants are required to respond. To the extent Defendants are unaware of or do not have access to any responsive texts or emails, Defendants must provide a code-compliant statement of inability to comply. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) A further response is required.

c. RFP No. 23

            RFP No. 23 requests all documents reflecting any complaints, grievances, or reports by Defendants’ employees regarding harassment during the relevant time period. Defendants objected that the request is vague, overbroad, and burdensome, requires Defendants to make a legal conclusion, and is irrelevant to the extent it seeks information from the Defendants that did not employ Plaintiff. In opposition, Defendants argue that the request is overbroad because it would require a wholesale interrogation of every employee. Defendants further argue that they are not aware of any harassment in the workplace and therefore cannot comply with the demand.

            The response is sufficiently clear to warrant a response. The phrase “complaints, grievances, or reports,” and the term “harassment,” are not vague as Defendants contend in their objections. Defendants do not explain how the request forces them to make a legal conclusion. The request does not require an interrogation of every employee, because it seeks existing documents regarding harassment complaints. Defendants are not being asked to generate new reports by asking every employee about harassment. To the extent Defendants cannot comply with the request, the response must be code-compliant. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.) A further response is required.

II. Sanctions

            Defendants’ opposition provides no substantial justification for their boilerplate objections and non-compliant responses. Even if Defendants serve supplemental responses prior the hearing on this motion, it is clear that Defendants were unwilling to serve proper responses until faced with a motion. Notably, Defendants requested multiple extensions, promising to provide supplemental responses, only to now stand on their original objections. (See Roshanian Decl. ¶¶ 7-14.) If Defendants believed that their objections were proper in the first place, there was no need to ask for extensions to provide supplemental responses. This appears to be a delay tactic.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendants are to serve further responses to RFP Nos. 3, 12, 13, and 23 within 15 days. The Court sanctions Defendants in the total amount of $2060, to be paid within 30 days.