Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 20SMCV00919, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00919    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse

Department 200

BACKGROUND

            This case involves claims for wage and hour violations, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  Plaintiff Melissa Looby was employed by Defendant Reading International Inc. (“Reading”) as an administrative assistant and office manager.  First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶8, 16.  Her job duties included party planning, office supply purchasing and mailing.  FAC ¶14.  She claims Reading misclassified her as exempt and failed to pay her for overtime and to provide meal and rest breaks.  FAC ¶¶16, 18.  She complained of these wage and hour violations to the human resources representative, Terri Moore, who she claims then proceeded to retaliate against her.  FAC ¶¶16, 21.

            In addition to Moore’s retaliation, Plaintiff also claims Reading’s then-interim (and later permanent) CFO, Defendant Gilbert Avanes (“Avanes”), also harassed and discriminated against her.  FAC ¶8.  Plaintiff claims that Avanes verbally abused and intimidated Plaintiff and other female employees.  FAC ¶22.  On several occasions, Avanes would enter Plaintiff’s office, block her exit, and then scream and yell at her.  FAC ¶23.  Avanes would also question Plaintiff’s intelligence, implying that she was stupid.  FAC ¶23. 

            In August 2018, Plaintiff reported Avanes’ alleged discriminatory and harassing conduct to Reading’s CEO, but no investigation was conducted.  FAC ¶25.  In July 2019, Plaintiff again reported Avanes’ discriminatory and harassing conduct, this time to Reading’s in house counsel.  On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff participated in an investigation of Avanes for gender discrimination and harassment conducted by outside counsel.  FAC ¶26. 

            Around the same time, Avanes allegedly said that “when I become CFO I will clean house.”  FAC ¶28.  And when Avanes in fact became CFO, Plaintiff and two other female employees were laid off, one of whom also complained of Avanes’ misconduct.  FAC ¶29. 

            On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging 12 claims for: (1) breach of contract, (2) gender discrimination, (3) harassment, (4) retaliation, (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, (6) whistleblower retaliation, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) failure to pay overtime wages, (9) failure to provide meal breaks, (10) failure to provide rest breaks, (11) failure to maintain accurate records, and (12) waiting time penalties. 

            This hearing involves Plaintiff’s two motions to compel further responses to two sets of special interrogatories (Set Two and Set Three) and a motion for sanctions in the amount of $10,890. 

LOCAL RULES

            Pursuant to this Department’s local rules (available online), “[a]n IDC or permission from the court must occur prior to filing any motions to compel or compel further discovery responses.”  And “[i]n the event a motion to compel further responses is filed, the parties are required to submit a JOINT STATEMENT consisting of a four-column document set up as follows:  The first column will identify the number of the discovery request; the second, the text of the discovery request; the third, the text of the response; and the fourth, brief bullet point statements, one from each party as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.”     The parties had an IDC on September 19, 2022 as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three.  The minute entry from that conference states “Counsel are not able to resolve the disputes that are the subject of the pending motion[.]”  But it does not appear the parties had an IDC on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two or on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.  Further, the requirement for a Joint Statement has not been met.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses and for sanctions are denied without prejudice. 

ORDER

            Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three and Motion for Sanctions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the parties are directed to meet the requirements laid out in this Department’s local rules. 

DATED: October 18, 2022                                        ___________________________

                                                                              Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court