Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 20SMCV00974, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00974    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 discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  Plaintiff Maureen Atencio was employed by Defendant Reading International Inc. (“Reading”) as an SEC Financial Reporting Manager.  First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶8.  Plaintiff claims that although she performed the same job duties as her male predecessor, she was paid $40,000 less and given a lower title (“manager” instead of “director”).  FAC ¶8.

            Plaintiff was supervised by Defendant Gilbert Avanes (“Avanes”).  FAC ¶8.  Plaintiff claims that during her employment, Avanes would disparage women in the office and make “misogynistic statements” including stating that female employees were “nobodies”, calling women “delicate and fragile,” calling Plaintiff “stupid”, and “shushing” Plaintiff during meetings as though she was a child.  FAC ¶¶9-10.  Avanes also screamed at Plaintiff repeatedly, and on at least one occasion, Avanes flew into a public rage screaming at Plaintiff while pounding his chest.  FAC ¶11. 

            On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff made an anonymous complaint against Avanes.  Am. Compl ¶13.  The anonymous complaint related to Avanes’ discriminatory and harassing conduct towards women and alleged overtime violations.  FAC ¶13.  Plaintiff claims Avanes almost immediately began retaliating against her, taking away important job duties, removing Plaintiff from certain reporting committees, escalating his insults, and failing to give Plaintiff time off after a difficult audit when he gave everyone else in the work group time off.  FAC ¶14. 

            On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff was interviewed by an attorney who stated she was conducting an investigation.  FAC ¶15.  Plaintiff admitted to the attorney that she had filed a complaint against Avanes who both knew she filed the complaint and was retaliating against her.  FAC ¶15.  She also reported to the attorney that Avanes was setting her up for termination.  FAC ¶15. 

            Plaintiff claims that Avanes then threatened “when I become CFO I will clean house.”  FAC ¶17.  Immediately after he was promoted to CFO, Plaintiff alleges Avanes carried out his threat, and Plaintiff and two other female employees were laid off.  Am. Compl ¶18.  Reading claimed the layoff was worldwide, but according to Plaintiff, it actually impacted only four employees, three of whom were women.  FAC ¶¶18-19.

            On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging seven claims for: (1) gender discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, (5) retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) violations of the equal pay act. 

            This hearing involves Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to three special interrogatories:

            No. 79: Describe in detail the substance of each and every communication between YOU and YOUR Board of Directors regarding the August 2019 investigation conducted by Ellen Bandel.

            No. 80: Describe in detail the substance of each and every communication between YOU and YOUR Board of Directors regarding this lawsuit.

            No. 81: Describe in detail the substance of each and every communication between YOU and YOUR Board of Directors that refers in any manner to PLAINTIFF. 

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 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.”  Here, the parties have had an IDC on July 25, 2022 where they were instructed to “continue to meet and confer regarding supplemental responses that will be given and to try to resolve all non-privilege objections.”  However, the parties have not met the requirement to file a Joint Statement.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied without prejudice. 

ORDER

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is 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