Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2019-00050336-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2019-00050336-CU-OE-CTL MENDELSON VS STONCOR GROUP INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 06/06/2023

Defendant StonCor Group, Inc.'s Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Sanctions are denied.

1. Motion to Bifurcate Motions to bifurcate are generally discretionary and simply a means for the court to control its proceedings. (Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 504; Regents v. Univ. of Cal. v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 833; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(5).) The statutory authority for bifurcation provides as follows: The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(b).) Additionally, section 598 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that 'when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby,' a court may order 'that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any other part thereof in the case[.]' (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) Here, the court agrees that the most efficient manner to proceed is to first hold a jury trial on the individual claims, followed by a bench trial on the PAGA claims as necessary.

2. Motion to Compel Defendant propounded 702 special interrogatories on April 7, 2023.

Responses were due 30 days later, plus 2 court days since the discovery was electronically served.

(E.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) 30 days after April 7, 2023 was May 7, 2023-a Sunday.

Adding two court days puts the deadline on May 9, 2023. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that because the original 30-day deadline fell on a Sunday, it was automatically pushed to Monday and then 2 additional court days should be added to May 10, 2023. Plaintiff's construction is not correct. (Cf. Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136-137 [implicitly making a similar calculation of dates].) Even so, the court has considered the special interrogatories and the responses Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986268  19 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MENDELSON VS STONCOR GROUP INC [IMAGED]  37-2019-00050336-CU-OE-CTL thereto as provided in the separate statement. (ROA 136.) Further response is ordered to Special Interrogatory No. 1, which asks for all facts, documents or other evidence that relates to the contention that Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee. Plaintiff may not merely state in response that 'Plaintiff is an 'aggrieved employee' because he was employed by Defendants and had one or more of the alleged violations committed against him.' Plaintiff must identify facts, documents, or other evidence that support that conclusory claim.

Further responses are also ordered in response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 8, and 10 even if the responses summarize the factual underpinnings of the violations. More facts are required in response to Special Interrogatory No. 5, even if no financial injury is necessary for PAGA claims, Plaintiff must still identify any injuries that did occur with respect to him individually that will support individual damages.

No financial injuries are required to be specified with respect to the PAGA claims.

Further responses are also compelled as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13.

To the above responses, Plaintiff is ordered to provide full and clear factual responses.

No further responses are necessary to No. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14-35. The court will not evaluate the rest of the Special Interrogatories (i.e., 36-702) individually, but advises the parties to use the court's ruling as a guide in what responses are required and directs the parties to substantively meet and confer regarding the responses necessary. The sheer number of interrogatories are plainly excessive and the parties are ordered to keep that in mind during their meet and confer. Duplicative responses are not required so long as the responses provided to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are adequately thorough. No further responses regarding financial injuries outside of Plaintiff's individual claims are necessary. Finally, no further responses are required as to any interrogatories in what Defendant has specified as 'Category 3' or 'Category 4.' Responses are due within 30 days.

Sanctions are denied and should the parties be unable to agree on discovery following this court's order, the parties will be ordered to a discovery referee with the court to retain discretion over the allocation of the referee's fees.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986268  19