Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV02235, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02235    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

JUSTIN JERMAINE WILLS, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 22SMCV02235 Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant California Civil Rights Department

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Justin Jermaine Wills

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Justin Jermaine Wills’ 20 page complaint is a rambling, at times incoherent document. As best as the Court can decipher, Plaintiff alleges he filed a sex discrimination complaint against his landlord (Westwood Ventures) with Defendant California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”). Plaintiff complains that Westwood Ventures provided “unequal accommodations” to men because its restrooms had a “bizarre uncovered window” in front of the toilet that allowed passers-by to peer into the toilet. CRD closed the investigation without a finding of any violation. Plaintiff alleges that two CRD employees, Defendants Elida Ramirez and Angelina Endsley, improperly investigated his complaint and engaged in unspecified fraud

and deceit. After Plaintiff complained about their conduct, he claims CRD retaliated against him by refusing to investigate a separate employment discrimination complaint. Plaintiff seeks $100 million in damages.

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion for stay of discovery pending a ruling on their demurrer. The basis of the demurrer is that Defendants are immune from liability under multiple provisions of the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff has already served extensive discovery on Defendants and has refused to grant an extension for Defendants to respond until after this Court rules on Defendants’ demurrer. Absent a stay, responses to the discovery would be due in early February 2023. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion for stay.

LEGAL STANDARD "Courts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and dockets[.]" (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) This includes “the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) “[O]n motion and for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.020(b).) “In general, the management of discovery matters lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Philippine Exp. & Foreign Loan Guar. Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1084.)

DISCUSSION

The Court finds a protective order staying discovery is warranted. Without such a stay, Defendants would be forced to respond to wide-ranging discovery. Allowing discovery to proceed would effectively eliminate the protections afforded Defendants under the immunity established by the Government Claims Act, as they would be forced to engage in the burdens of litigation and discovery. “An immunity defense is effectively lost if an immune party is forced to … face the [] burdens of litigation.” (Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Super. Ct. (2005)

133 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1189; see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 818 (“Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.”) Further, as this case is in its infancy and no trial date has been set, Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if this Court stays discovery until a ruling on Defendants’ demurrer which is currently set for hearing on February 17, 2023.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on their demurrer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 7, 2023 ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court