Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV44634, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44634    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

            RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Total Renal Care, Inc. (“Defendant”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. 

BACKGROUND

The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges 10 causes of action arising from an employment relationship.

On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Three (“RFPs”) and for monetary sanctions (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2031.310, a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).)  A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.  (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 234-35.)  To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.  (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) 

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)  The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.020, subd. (a).)  To support an objection to a request for production of documents, the objecting party must establish the validity of its objections with supporting facts in order to meet its burden.  (Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 195, 198.) 

            The Motion concerns RFPs  66, 67, 69, 70, 75, 76, and 87-97.  The RFPs at issue were served on March 30, 2023.  (Declaration of Michael A. Levy (“Levy Decl.”) ¶ 4, Exhibit 3.)  Defendant provided responses on April 7, 2023 and provided supplemental responses on June 21, 2023.  (Levy Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)  Plaintiff contends that these RFPs concern requests for information regarding Plaintiff’s termination that are central to the claims in the FAC. 

            Defendant contends that its supplemental document production renders the Motion moot and that its privilege log adequately supports its otherwise valid objections.  (See Declaration of Alexander W. Rafuse (“Rafuse Decl.”) ¶ 8, Exhibits D-E.)  Defendant also contends that after initially conferring with Plaintiff about the sufficiency of its responses, it ran a comprehensive ESI search that encompassed over 333,000 emails and documents.  (Rafuse Decl. ¶ 7.) 

Several of the documents produced by Defendant are redacted, and the redactions are not reflected in the privilege log.  (See Levy Decl. ¶ 2.)  In addition, documents in the privilege log do not reflect the inclusion of any documents directly related to the decision to terminate Plaintiff.  (See Rafuse Decl., Exhibit E.)  Further, although Defendant contends that it produced emails in their native format, Plaintiff indicates that the documents were produced as PDFs, rather than their native electronic format.  (See Crews v. Willows Unified School Dist. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1368, 1372 n. 2.) 

Based on the evidence presented in the Motion and Opposition, the Court finds it appropriate to GRANT the Motion.  Defendant is ordered to produce a supplemental privilege log that identifies any documents regarding the decision to terminate Plaintiff, if any, that were withheld due to attorney/client privilege and that states the bases for the redactions contained in documents it has produced.   Defendant is further ordered to provide Plaintiff with copies of the emails it has produced in their native electronic format.  The Court finds it appropriate to limit RFP No. 89 to records related to documents that are responsive to RFP No. 88.  Defendant is ordered to supplement its production within 30 days of the date of this order.

            The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.  Defendant is ordered to provide further responses that contain statements of compliance within 30 days of the date of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

In connection with the Motion, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions which represent six hours preparing the Motion at a rate of $695 per hour.  (Levy Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.) 

The Court exercises its discretion and grants Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the total amount of $4,170, which represents six hours preparing the Motion at a rate of $695 per hour.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  Defendant and counsel are jointly responsible for paying this amount within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

        Dated this 27th day of September 2023