Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV28228, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28228    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Bakemark USA, LLC (“Defendant”)

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges nine causes of action that arise out of an employment relationship.

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (“SPROGs”), Set One, Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, and Form Interrogatories (Employment), Set One (“FROGs”) (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.)  For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.”  (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

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.) 

Under CCP section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.  (CCP § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  If only a part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered; and if an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated.  (CCP § 2030.240, subds. (a)-(b).)  The burden is on the party responding to discovery to justify his or her objections to such discovery.  (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.) 

Plaintiff served the discovery requests at issue in the Motion on November 3, 2022.  (Declaration of Thomas Segal (“Segal Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-4, Exhibits 1-3.)  Defendant provided responses on or around February 6, 2023.  (Segal Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, Exhibits 4-6.)  Defendant provided supplemental responses on August 7, 2023.  (Segal Decl. ¶ 15, Exhibit 12.) 

Defendant provides evidence that it provided further supplemental responses to SPROG No. 5 and RFP No. 26.  (See Declaration of Phillip Di Tullio (“Di Tullio Decl.”) ¶ 4, Exhibits A-C.) 

            Plaintiff’s reply brief (the “Reply”) argues that Defendant’s responses to RFP No. 26 and FROG No. 201.6 remain unsatisfactory.  Upon review of Defendant’s responses, the Court agrees that further supplemental responses to these requests are appropriate.  Defendant’s response to RFP No. 26 is evasive because it limits the scope of the query to “complaints made in California involving the discrimination claims alleged by Plaintiff in this action.”  (See Di Tullio Decl., Exhibit B.) 

            With respect to FROG No. 201.6, Defendant fails to substantiate its objection that the request for contact information of current employees impermissibly encroaches upon the privacy rights of third parties.  (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552-55.)  The Court finds that notwithstanding Defendant’s employees’ right to privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to discover the information sought in FROG No. 201.6, although the Court deems it appropriate for Defendant to redact its current employees’ addresses if they can be contacted through counsel.  

            The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.  Defendant is ordered to provide further supplemental responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000.  The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions because the Motion does not specify whether the sanctions are sought against Defendant, its counsel, or both. 

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 26th day of January 2024