Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01179367, Date: 2023-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Bastan Falsafi’s motion to compel further responses to his requests for production of documents, set two, from Defendant House of Imports, Inc. ("Defendant") is granted in part.  The motion is granted as to nos. 59, 61-68, 70-76, and 77-219, as set forth below.  The motion is denied as to nos. 220-232.   

When moving to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, the moving party must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial).  (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

Nos. 220-232

In the reply brief, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant has sufficiently supplemented its responses to nos. 220-232. He withdrew these requests.  (Reply, at pp. 1-2.)  Accordingly, the motion is denied as to nos. 220-232.  

Nos. 77-217

These requests deal with car sales and lease applications, customer loans and applications for financing, agreements and contracts that were all related to a specific deal number.

Plaintiff contends that there is good cause for these requests, because it is necessary to support his claims that Defendants committed bank fraud by submitting fraudulent customer loan applications, forging signatures on the car sales applications and falsifying customer information. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 25-32.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that the deals have sensitive customer information, and thus implicate the privacy rights of third parties.  Specifically, Defendant states that many of the requested documents contain sensitive information of third-parties, including Social Security numbers, home addresses, employer information, and bank account details. (Woods Decl., at ¶ 11.)

The court agrees with both sides.  The motion as to these requests is granted.  However, Defendant shall be allowed to redact third-party private information, such as social security numbers, contact information, and bank account details.   

Nos. 59, 61-68, 70-76 and 218-219

These requests deal with customer complaints and disciplinary actions against Plaintiff’s comparators (HOI Finance Managers).  Plaintiff argues that further responses should be compelled because in discovery, Defendant contends that Plaintiff was terminated due to customer complaints and due to his violation of Defendants’ policies. (Freeze Decl., at ¶ 8, Exh. H.)  Particularly, Plaintiff was given a corrective action warning for violating Defendant’s policy that a service contract cannot be marked up over a $2,000 profit cap. However, Plaintiff contends contention that he was not the only manager who violated such policies. (Freeze Decl., at ¶ 9, Exh. I.)

The information requested is relevant to whether Defendant singled Plaintiff out in retaliation for whistleblowing by treating him more harshly than other employees who engaged in similar conduct. Plaintiff has shown good cause for the discovery of these documents.  Like the other requests, Defendant is allowed to redact specific customer data for privacy reasons. 

Within 15 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to nos. 59, 61-68, 70-76, and 77-219.

Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Plaintiff $2,310 in sanctions against Defendant shall pay $2,310 in sanctions to Workplace Justice Advocates, PLC. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.