Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV38183, Date: 2023-03-13 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: 21STCV38183 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 26
21STCV38183
On March 10, 2023, Counsel for the parties
participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court, at the
conclusion of which the parties agreed as follows:
Plaintiff’s requests for “me too” evidence
(SROG 72, RPD 16, RPD 57, RPD 59, RPD 73) will be modified and narrowed to require
Defendant to identify all complainants who alleged that they were harassed,
retaliated against, discriminated against, or wrongfully terminated based on
mental disabilities. Within 30 days of
today, Defendants will voluntarily supplement their response to SROG 72, RPD
16, RPD 57, RPD 59, RPD 73 pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
SROG
28 will be modified into two questions as follows: (1) Please IDENTIFY which
factors you consider in deciding whether to terminate an employee out on
medical leave when you are understaffed; and (2) Please IDENTIFY what factors were
considered in the decision to terminate Plaintiff. Within 30 days of today, Defendants will
voluntarily supplement their response to SROG 28 pursuant to the parties’
stipulation.
With respect to the deposition of Defendant’s
former employee Rhonda Fairchild, Defendant has produced to Plaintiff a letter
from City of Hope verifying that Ms. Fairchild is unfortunately a stage IV
cancer patient and is medically unable to sit for a deposition.
Defendant proposes that Rhonda Fairchild answer up to 20 written
questions in writing under oath in lieu of a deposition. If the parties are unable to come to an
agreement, Defendant will file a motion for a protective order.
This stipulation was posted to the
Court’s tentative ruling website, and all Counsel stipulated to the accuracy of
the stipulations memorialized above. IT
IS SO ORDERED.
For
any motion to compel further in this action that has been filed or will be
filed in the future, the responding party’s voluntary service of supplemental
responses prior to the hearing will likely moot all issues for the motion
except for sanctions. The parties are
ordered to meet and confer regarding sanctions and to file a joint statement within
5 days of the service of supplemental responses; the joint statement must advise
that supplemental responses have been served and advise whether the parties
have been able to resolve the sole remaining issue of sanctions. In order to demonstrate that supplemental
responses have been served thereby mooting a pending motion to compel further,
the responding party must also file and serve a copy of the verified
supplemental responses no later than when the opposition is due. If the moving party deems that the
supplemental responses remain deficient and/or non-code compliant, the moving party
must timely (within 45 days of service of the supplemental responses) file and
serve a new motion to compel further complying with all statutory requirements,
including a meet and confer regarding the supplemental responses and a separate
statement that includes all responses (original and supplemental). The moving party may contact Department 26 to
request a further informal discovery conference to discuss the remaining
disputes following the service of supplemental responses. The parties are ordered to file a joint
statement of items remaining in dispute no later than 5 days before the further
IDC.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
The
Court’s Judicial Assistant shall give notice to all parties.