Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV06099, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling





1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.




2. 
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.




3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING.  The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.




4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS.  Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.




 






Case Number: 20STCV06099    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 26

 

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

 

daniel girch,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

lockheed martin corporation; courtney magill; brittany albertson, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

 Case No.: 20STCV06099

 

 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motions to compel DEFENDANTS MAGILL AND ALBERTSON’s further responses TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 AND TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION’s FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NINE

 

 

Procedural Background

             On February 13, 2020, plaintiff Daniel Girch (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant employment discrimination action against defendants Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Defendant” or “Lockheed”), Courtney Magill (“Magill”), and Brittany Albertson (“Albertson”) (collectively “Defendants”). 

On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint which the Court granted on March 1, 2022.  That same day, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.  

On May 5, 2022 – pursuant to the parties’ stipulation – Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants.  The SAC asserts ten causes of action for (1) Age Discrimination; (2) Gender Discrimination; (3) Race Discrimination; (4) Harassment/Hostile environment based on Age; (5) Retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation; (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Slander; (9) Libel; and (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

            On February 28, 2022 – before the operative complaint was filed – Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Lockheed’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 9.  On March 7, 2022 – also before the operative complaint was filed – Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant Courtney Magill and Defendant Brittany Albertson’s further responses to form interrogatory No. 15.1.  On June 30, 2022, the Court conducted an informal discovery conference.  At the June 30, 2022 IDC, the parties stipulated that upon Defendants’ filing of answers to the amended complaint, the instant motions to compel

further responses to Requests for Production Set 9 and to Form Interrogatory 15.1 would become moot except as to the issue of sanctions.  (Minute Order 6/30/22.)  The Court ordered the parties to file a joint statement regarding sanctions ten days prior to the hearing for the instant motions.  (Minute Order 6/30/22.)  On October 18, 2022, Defendants and Plaintiff each filed a statement regarding the remaining requests for sanctions.

 

Discussion

As noted above, the instant motions to compel further responses are moot except as to sanctions.  Accordingly, the Court turns to the requests for sanctions.

 

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $6,000.00 against Defendant Lockheed, sanctions of $3,000.00 against Defendant Magill, and sanctions of $3,000.00 against Defendant Albertson.  In opposition, Defendants contend that sanctions are unwarranted because there was no basis for the instant motion.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [interrogatories or request for production], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.300(c), [italics added].)  Further, it is an abuse of discovery to make an evasive response or make unsubstantiated objections to discovery.  (CCP § 2023.010(e)-(f).)  

The Court finds that sanctions are unwarranted under the circumstances.  As to Defendant Magill and Defendant Albertson, the discovery request at issue – Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 requests that Defendants Magill and Albertson identify facts, witnesses, and documents in support of each denial or each affirmative defense in support of their pleading.  (3/7/22 Dean Decl., Exhs. 1-2.)  At the time the instant motion was filed – March 7, 2022 – there was no operative answer by Defendants Magill and Albertson because Plaintiff had just filed the First Amended Complaint on March 1, 2022 -- a few days prior to filing the instant motion to compel further.  In fact, a responsive pleading – a demurrer – was not filed until April 1, 2022.  Thus, there was no affirmative defense or denial to which the request could refer at the time Plaintiff filed this motion.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request was not ripe until Defendants Magill and Albertson filed their answers.  Therefore, there was no basis for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further responses as to Defendants Magill and Albertson.  Defendants Magill and Albertson have acted justifiably, and there is no basis for sanctions.

As to Defendant Lockheed, Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set Nine, nos. 144, 156, and 162-169.  Requests No. 144 sought the report investigation in its native format.  Defendant Lockheed’s response stated that “it has already produced the requested document in the only format in which it currently exists within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control.”  This is clearly a code compliant response as the response clearly indicated that all responsive documents had been produced in the proper format.  Plaintiff argued that the document should exist in another format other than the PDF that was produced.  This is an insufficient basis to support a motion to compel further as Lockheed had responded under oath in its verified response that the produced document was in its native format.

Request No. 156. Requested the Setting the Standard, Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applicable from January 2019 through the date of Plaintiff’s termination.  Defendant Lockheed responded that the document had already been produced.  In fact, Plaintiff’s own evidence indicates that Defendant Lockheed identified the bates numbers – LMC 3846-3532 – of the document that Defendant Lockheed had already produced.  (2/28/22 Dean Decl., Exh. 6.)  Given that Defendant Lockheed had already produced the document before Plaintiff filed the instant motion, and the response indicated as such, there was nothing further to compel at the time Plaintiff filed this motion.

Requests Nos. 162-169 seek documents supporting Defendant Lockheed’s various affirmative defenses.  In response to each of these requests, Defendant Lockheed responded substantively stating that “it will produce any responsive documents it is able to locate after a diligent search and inquiry that are within its possession, custody, or control that have not already been produced or filed.”  This response is somewhat improper because the response did not identify documents that Defendant Lockheed had produced or what steps Defendant Lockheed had taken to conduct a diligent search for documents, the instant motion was still improper and not ripe at the time Plaintiff filed it.  On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff had moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.  On February 7, 2022, the Court granted the motion for leave on the condition that Plaintiff pay for Defendants’ attorneys’ fees in drafting a summary judgment motion, which would have been rendered moot by the filing of a First Amended Complaint.  (Order 2/7/22.)  At the oral request of Plaintiff, the Court continued Plaintiff’s motion for leave to a date after the hearing on Defendant Lockheed’s summary judgment motion to avoid any prejudice to Defendants.  (Order 2/7/22.)  Thus, at the time Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 28, 2022, Plaintiff was well aware that Plaintiff’s requests for documents supporting affirmative defenses would become moot upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint three days later.  Accordingly, there was no good cause to bring the instant motion to compel further responses.

Based on the totality of the circumstances Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

 

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Daniel Girch’s motion to compel Defendant Lockheed’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Nine is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff Daniel Girch’s motion to compel Defendant Courtney Magill’s further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff Daniel Girch’s motion to compel Defendant Brittany Albertson’s further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party is to give notice and file proof of service of such.

 

DATED: October 25, 2022                                                     ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court