Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV09530, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09530    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Lexi Burrows and Brooklynn Lundberg filed this employment action against Defendants Touchstone Golf, LLC, Ashley Walston, Peter Wagner, and the City of Burbank. Plaintiffs assert claims stemming from harassment, discrimination and retaliation, wrongful termination, and wage violations. Plaintiffs allege that they experienced and spoke out against sexual harassment and discrimination, and reported illegal or unsafe working conditions, only to suffer retaliation for doing so.  

            On September 20, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Touchstone’s PMK, ordering the deposition to take place and for documents to be produced.

            On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel compliance with the September 20 order. Touchstone filed its opposition on January 2, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply on January 8, 2024.  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs raise two arguments in their motion for why Touchstone has failed to abide by the Court’s September 20, 2024 order: (1) Touchstone failed to produce the documents demanded in the deposition notice by the date of the originally-set deposition; and (2) Touchstone refuses to provide the availability of its PMKs.

            a. Document Demands

            Plaintiffs argue that “[p]ursuant to CCP §2025.450(a) and the Court’s order, the documents were due on the date noticed for production, which was October 4, 2024.” (Mtn. 8:15-16.) Section 2025.450(a) merely authorizes a motion to compel when a deponent fails to appear or to produce documents. It does not specify a due date for document production. The Court’s September 20 order did not state that documents were due on October 4.

            Plaintiffs cite no authority for their proposition that documents demanded in a deposition notice must be produced on the date of the originally-set deposition. Documents accompanying deposition notices are ordinarily produced at the deposition itself. Plaintiffs’ deposition notices instructed the deponent “to bring the documents and things identified in the requests,” confirming that documents are brought to the deposition, not produced before. (See Schein Decl., Ex. 1, 7.) If Touchstone had complied with the deposition notices, the PMKs would have appeared and produced documents on October 4, 2024, the same day. Thus, Plaintiffs would not have received documents prior to the depositions regardless.

In sum, Touchstone’s PMKs are not required to produce the documents until the depositions. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking production of ESI previously demanded in separate written RFPs, that has been addressed in the Court’s concurrent order on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance, impose sanctions, and stay discovery (CRS# 4240).

b. Deposition Dates

            The correspondence between the parties indicates that they are unable to find mutually agreeable dates. Thus, an order compelling the depositions is warranted. The deposition of Mark Luthman shall take place on _______________, 2025. The deposition of Doug Harker shall take place on _______________, 2025.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with depositions is GRANTED in part. The depositions of Touchstone’s PMKs shall take place on the dates specified above. Documents shall be produced at the depositions. Sanctions are denied.  

BACKGROUND

            On April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs Lexi
Burrows and Brooklynn Lundberg filed this employment action against Defendants
Touchstone Golf, LLC, Ashley Walston, Peter Wagner, and the City of Burbank.
Plaintiffs assert claims stemming from harassment, discrimination and
retaliation, wrongful termination, and wage violations. Plaintiffs allege that
they experienced and spoke out against sexual harassment and discrimination,
and reported illegal or unsafe working conditions, only to suffer retaliation
for doing so.  

            On September 24, 2024, the Court
granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with RFPs, ordering ESI to be
produced in native format.

            On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs
filed the instant motion to compel compliance with the September 24 order, to
impose monetary and nonmonetary sanctions, and to stay discovery until
Touchstone complies with its obligations. Touchstone filed its opposition on
January 2, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply on January 8, 2025. 

DISCUSSION

            Touchstone does not dispute the
history of delays in producing the ESI, including after the Court’s most recent
order on September 24, 2024. (See Schein Decl. ¶¶ 4-20.) Touchstone does not
dispute the following recent facts. Plaintiffs granted a one-week extension on
October 18, 2024. (Id., ¶ 14.) On October 29, 2024, Touchstone claimed
that ESI would be produced by the end of the week, which was more than one week
after October 18. (Id., ¶ 16.) On October 31, 2024, Touchstone produced
documents in PDF format, not native, claiming that it was an error and that
native documents would be forthcoming. (Id., ¶ 18.) At the time
Plaintiffs filed this motion, Touchstone had not produced the ESI in native
format. (Id., ¶ 20.)

Touchstone claims to have produced the
native ESI on December 2, 2024. (Tong Decl. ¶ 11.) However, the production is
incomplete. (Schein Reply Decl. ¶¶ 10-13, Ex. 4.) Touchstone’s counsel even
admitted so in her cover email, stating that production was on a “rolling
basis” and that “other native emails” would be forthcoming. (Id., Ex.
1.) The discovery has been outstanding since 2023 and has already been the
subject of prior court orders. Plaintiffs have already granted multiple
extensions, and Touchstone has ignored multiple deadlines. The production is past
due, and Touchstone provides no reason why the production is still incomplete. Production
of ESI in native format is standard.  

Monetary sanctions are warranted for
Touchstone’s continuous and unjustified failure to produce ESI. Nonmonetary
sanctions and a stay of discovery are unnecessary as Touchstone is being
ordered to provide the missing discovery.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
production, impose sanctions, and stay discovery is GRANTED in part. Touchstone
shall complete its production of ESI in native format by __________________,
2025. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $3,500, to be paid within 30 days
of this order. Nonmonetary sanctions are denied. Discovery is not stayed.