Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01090, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV01090 Hearing Date: June 5, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: June
5, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: JIMMY KAO vs
IMPERIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE GROUP, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.
CASE NO.: 23AHCV01090
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jimmy Kao
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant
Imperial Health Holdings; Defendant Imperial Management Service Group, LLC; and
Defendant Paveljit Singh Bindra
SERVICE: Filed March 11, 2024
OPPOSITION: Filed May 22, 2024
REPLY: Filed May 29, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff filed three separate motions to compel further responses and
production of documents as to Defendant Imperial Health Holdings,
Defendant Imperial Management Service Group, LLC, and Defendant Paveljit Singh
Bindra.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
complaint against Defendants Imperial Management Service Group, LLC; Imperial
Health Holdings; and Paveljit Singh Bindra, alleging:
(1) Violation Of Whistleblower
Protections;
(2) Age Discrimination;
(3) Retaliation;
(4) Wrongful Termination In Violation Of
Public Policy;
(5) Race Based Harassment;
(6) Failure To Prevent Harassment,
Discrimination, And/Or Retaliation;
(7) Intentional Infliction Of Emotional
Distress;
(8) Failure To Pay All Wages Earned;
(9) Failure To Timely Pay Wages At
Termination Of Employment;
(10) Failure To Maintain And Provide
Compliant Wage Statements;
(11) Violation Of Section 204 Of The
California Labor Code;
(12) Violation Of Section 2810.5 Of The
California Labor Code;
(13) Unfair Business Practices; and
(14) Violation Of Section 2698, Et Seq.
Of The California Labor Code, Pursuant To PAGA.
Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as a
Manager by Defendants on July 29, 2019, and was promoted to Senior Manager in
October 2021 due to his consistently strong performance. He successfully
managed both the Eligibility and Capitation and Data Management Departments and
received a merit-based raise and bonus. During his tenure, Plaintiff raised concerns about Defendants not
maintaining sufficient reserves for incurred but not reported (IBNR) claims,
which were ignored by Defendant Bindra and others. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-15). On May 20,
2022, Plaintiff received an unjustified
written “Verbal Warning” that was acknowledged as unfounded but was not
rescinded, and the second portion of his raise was withheld. (Compl. ¶ 16).
Plaintiff also experienced a hostile
work environment where Defendant Bindra verbally abused employees and made
racist comments. Bindra disapproved of employees taking time off, even for
approved leaves of absence. (Compl. ¶ 17). On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff took
FMLA leave to care for his autistic son but was required to work intermittently
without full compensation for the extra days he worked. (Compl. ¶ 18). Upon
returning from FMLA leave on October 26, 2022, Plaintiff was terminated under
the pretext that his position was eliminated, although he believes the real
reasons were whistleblowing, retaliation, and discrimination. He was not
offered a comparable position or notified of his status as a “key employee.” (Compl.
¶ 19).
Initially, Plaintiff was not paid for
his last day of work, but after confronting the issue, he received payment with
penalties, although he alleges an additional unexplained $50 was added as an
insult. (Compl. ¶ 20.) His responsibilities were transferred to two younger
individuals. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Since his termination, Plaintiff has struggled to
find employment, and his professional reputation has been damaged. He has also
suffered severe emotional distress, leading to insomnia, increased blood
pressure, and the need for medication for anxiety, sleep, and blood pressure
management. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23.)
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motion to compel
further discovery responses to Request for Production of Documents as to
Defendants Imperial Health Holdings, Imperial Management Service Group, LLC,
and Paveljit Singh Bindra.is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded sanctions in the amount of $7,905.00.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt of a
response to a Request for Production of Documents, the demanding party may move
for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party
deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or
(3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (CCP §
2031.310(a).)
Motions to
compel further responses to RPDs must set forth specific facts showing good
cause justifying the discovery sought by the request. (CCP §
2031.310(b).) 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, disapproved on
other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531; see
also Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98
[characterizing good cause as “a fact-specific showing of relevance”].) If good
cause is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party
to justify any objections made to disclosure of the documents. (Kirkland,
supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.)
DISCUSSION
Meet and Confer
A motion to compel further
responses to requests for production of documents must be accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
Counsel for the parties’ declarations reveal that meet and
confer attempts were made, but the parties were unable to informally resolve
the dispute. (Decker Decl. ¶ 16; Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.) Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts
were sufficient and this requirement is satisfied.
RPDs as to
Imperial Health Holdings
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant Imperial Health Holdings
(“Imperial Health”) to provide further responses and produce documents in
response to RPD Nos. 2, 69-77, and 80, and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff
requests that the Court to compel the production of documents related to
Imperial Health’s business and organizational structure, ownership, and
financial exchanges with other entities, as these are crucial for Plaintiff’s
alter ego claims and identifying potential co-defendants. (Decker Decl. ¶ 2-3,
Exh. A-C.)
Plaintiff argues that Imperial Health has repeatedly failed to comply
with discovery requests and deadlines, despite numerous extensions and promises
of forthcoming responses. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served form
interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Imperial Health.
After several extensions, Imperial Health served unverified responses on
September 22, 2023, with verifications following on October 20, 2023. (Decker
Decl. ¶ 2-4, Exhs. A-D.) Despite a meet and confer email sent on October 13,
2023, and subsequent discussions, Defendants did not provide the promised
supplemental responses and document production by the agreed date of October
27, 2023. (Decker Decl. ¶ 5-7, Exhs. E-G.) Further extensions were granted, but
deadlines on November 8, 2023, and December 1, 2023, were missed, with
incomplete and duplicative document productions made on December 6 and 29, 2023.
(Decker Decl. ¶ 8-11, Exhs. H-J.) Counsel for Plaintiff continued to follow up,
but responses remained insufficient. On January 12, 2024, Imperial Health
finally served amended responses, but ongoing issues prompted further
extensions and communications. (Decker Decl. ¶ 12-13, Exhs. K-M). Defendants provided
unverified responses on February 21, 2024. (Decker Decl. ¶ 14-16, Exhs. N-M.)
Plaintiff argues that the requested documents are relevant and necessary for
the case and that Defendants’ responses are evasive and inadequate.
In opposition, Imperial
Health points out that approximately 80 requests were made to each Defendant. Thus,
due to the volume, it sought several extensions to gather documents and assess
the propriety of the requests. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Imperial Health claims its
counsel continued to diligently gather the requested records following the
parties’ meet and confer communications regarding the insufficient responses. Due
to intermittent absences in February 2024, further responses were eventually
produced on February 21, 2024, and the motion to compel deadline was extended
to March 11, 2024. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.) Defendant’s counsel attempted to
resolve the disputed requests through further meet and confer efforts but
concluded that the requests were improper, and Plaintiff’s counsel would not
change her position. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 17.)
In reply, Plaintiff
contends that Imperial Health has engaged in prolonged delays, missed multiple
extensions, and failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts or offer
compromises. Despite a protective order in place, Plaintiff claims that
Imperial Health unilaterally decided not to respond to certain discovery
requests, a decision which was not communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Moreover, Plaintiff points out that Imperial Health has only produced a
majority of the documents deemed proper by itself, which is contrary to
discovery rules. Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot selectively respond to
discovery requests and that the documents sought are crucial to the case.
A. Request Number
2: Business and Organizational Structure Request
Plaintiff argues that
Imperial Health has failed to produce documents evidencing its business and
organizational structure from January 1, 2018, to the present, as requested. Plaintiff
claims these documents are crucial for substantiating Plaintiff’s alter ego
claims, confirming that Defendant Paveljit Singh Bindra was a supervisor and
owner, and identifying the actual employer of Plaintiff and other affected
employees. (Decker Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Despite the request being narrowly
tailored and standard for employment and alter ego cases, Plaintiff asserts
that Imperial Health claimed that such documents were under the control of Imperial
Management Services Group LLC and did not produce any relevant documents. When
Plaintiff’s counsel sought clarification on this claim, no adequate response
was provided. (Decker Decl. ¶¶ 5, 13, 15, Exhs. E, M.) No supplemental,
amended, or further responses were provided, and Defendants did not dispute the
existence of the requested documents. (Decker Decl. ¶¶ 5-8, 10-16, Exhs. E-K,
M-N.) As the requested documents are relevant and likely to lead to admissible
evidence, Plaintiff contends that Imperial Health’s response is evasive and
incomplete.
In opposition, Imperial
Health argues that while the scope of discovery is broad, it is not limitless.
The Court must limit discovery if the burden, expense, or intrusiveness
outweighs the likelihood of obtaining admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2017.020(a).) Imperial Health asserts that Plaintiff’s requests for financial
records over the past six years, including documents related to profits,
income, bank accounts, investments, and business expenses, are overbroad and
harassing.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that Request No. 2 does not seek financial records but
rather documents evidencing the business and organizational structure of
Imperial Health. Plaintiff asserts that this request is routine and relevant
for employment and alter ego cases. Plaintiff points out that Imperial Health
did not address the issues raised in the motion to compel and does not dispute
the relevance or existence of the requested documents.
B. Request
Numbers 69-76 and 80: Alter Ego, Additional Co-Defendants, and Corporate
Records Requests
Plaintiff seeks documents
relevant to alter ego claims, potential additional co-defendants, and basic
corporate records through Request Numbers 69-76 and 80. Plaintiff claims these
requests are standard in alter ego and employment cases, which seek evidence of
financial exchanges, operating agreements, shareholder agreements, bylaws, and
property ownership. (Decker Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff argues that Imperial
Health responded with meritless, duplicative, and boilerplate objections,
claiming annoyance, embarrassment, and trade secrets. Further, despite repeated
assurances of forthcoming responses, no substantive responses were provided.
(Decker Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. C; ¶¶ 5-8, 10-16, Exhs. E-K, M-N.) Plaintiff states
that Imperial Health also failed to offer any compromise or ask for the
requests to be narrowed. Even after Plaintiff entered into a protective order
to address concerns about confidentiality, Imperial Health continued to refuse
to produce the requested documents. (Decker Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff argues that
these documents are relevant and necessary for the case and that Imperial
Health’s refusal to produce them is in bad faith. Plaintiff requests the court
to compel the production of these documents and impose sanctions on Defendant
Imperial Health and its counsel (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010; 2031.010;
2031.310(a); 2023.010(e), (f), (h), and (i); 2031.310(h)).
In opposition, Plaintiff assert
that the requests are based on unsupported alter ego allegations and aim to
gain access to private financial information, which is irrelevant to the core
wage and hour claims against Defendant Imperial Management Services Group LLC.
To prove alter ego, Plaintiff must show a unity of interest and an inequitable
result if the corporate separation is maintained, which they have not
established. Imperial Health argues that Plaintiff has no evidence to support
alter ego claims and that financial documents are unnecessary for the wage
claims. Further, Imperial Health contends that Plaintiff’s requests violate
their right to privacy and lack a compelling need for the financial
information. It reasons that the discovery requests are seen as an invasion of
privacy and an undue burden, and Plaintiff has not shown that the information
sought is necessary or relevant to the claims and has not attempted to obtain
the information through less intrusive means.
In reply, Plaintiff
contends that most of these requests seek routine corporate records, not
financial records, contrary to Defendant’s claims. Requests 72-76 seek the
operating agreement, shareholder agreement, bylaws, and minutes of meetings.
Request No. 80 seeks evidence of property owned or operated by Defendant. The
remaining requests, 69-71, seek specific financial information, which Plaintiff
argues are relevant to the alter ego and whistleblowing claims.
C. Request No.
77: Ownership Request
Plaintiff requested all
documents evidencing the owners and/or shareholders of Defendant Imperial
Health. Defendant Imperial Health agreed to produce these documents but failed
to provide any that actually identify the owners or shareholders, only listing
officers and directors (Decker Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A; ¶ 3, Exh. C; ¶ 19, Exh. O).
Despite Plaintiff’s counsel raising this issue for several months, Defendant
Imperial Health has refused to provide the agreed-upon documents (Decker Decl.
¶¶ 5-8, 10-16, Exhs. E-K, M-N). Plaintiff argues that since Defendant Imperial
Health already agreed to produce these documents, their failure to do so
warrants a court order compelling production and sanctions against Defendant
Imperial Health and its attorneys for not complying with their own agreement
without judicial intervention (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010; 2023.010(e),
(f), (h), and (i); 2031.310(a) and (h)).
In
opposition, Imperial Health argues that Request No. 77, which seeks documents
evidencing the owners or shareholders of Imperial Health Holdings, is
intrusive, irrelevant, and seeks confidential information. It asserts that the
right to privacy under the California Constitution protects against the
unwarranted disclosure of personal financial information, and ownership
interests in publicly registered entities are protected, and disclosure is only
warranted if there is a compelling need that outweighs the right to privacy. (Carmel-By-The-Sea
v. Young (1970) 2 Cal.3d 259.) However, it contends that the information
sought here is not relevant to the dispute and is protected by privacy rights
as Plaintiff’s request for ownership information lacks justification and is
seen as a fishing expedition. Imperial Health states that the identities of
owners or shareholders are not pertinent to the wage and hour claims and should
remain private. (Life Technology Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 640.) Imperial Health argues the request is overly broad, not
limited in time, and could include a vast array of irrelevant documents. Given
the privacy protections, the request should be denied unless Plaintiff can
demonstrate a compelling need. (Valley Bank of Nev. v. Superior Court (1975)
15 Cal.3d 652.)
In
reply, Plaintiff states that Imperial Health agreed to produce the documents
but failed to do so. Instead, it produced documents listing officers and
directors, not owners or shareholders. Imperial Health now claims the request
is improper, citing vague privacy protections, but these are not applicable to
a professional corporation. Plaintiff contends that the requested documents are
relevant to alter ego claims and that any privacy concerns can be addressed by
the existing protective order. Plaintiff argues that Imperial Health’s claim of
having provided an organizational chart is false and that no such documents
were actually produced.
The Court finds that the
discovery requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s alter ego claims and related
employment matters regarding the subject of this case. Regarding RPD no. 2, the
Court finds the requests to be relevant in establishing the relationship
dynamics within the corporate structure, which are central to Plaintiff’s alter
ego claims. For RPD nos. 69-76 and 80, the Court finds that the corporate records
requested, such as operating agreements, shareholder agreements, bylaws, and
records of corporate meetings, directly pertain to the alter ego allegations
and are thus relevant. These documents may reveal how closely the operations
between the entities are intertwined. RPD no. 77 are again relevant to the
alter ego claims.
Upon review of the
discovery requests and responses, the Court finds the requests to be
sufficiently worded and the responses to be deficient. Imperial Health fails to
provide a sufficient reason that allows it to withhold the requested
information. Specifically, the objections based on privacy and relevance do not
stand given the protective order in place and the nature of the allegations
which include alter ego claims requiring the disclosure of the organizational
structure and financial entanglements.
Thus, the Court grants
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Imperial Health for RPD nos.
2, 69-77, and 80.
RPDs as to Imperial
Management Service Group, LLC
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant Imperial Management
Service Group, LLC (“Imperial Management”) to provide further responses and
produce documents in response to RPD Nos. 51, 53, 70-74, and 76, and monetary
sanctions.
The parties make the same arguments regarding the facts of the discovery
issues and document production as in the Imperial Health motion.
A. Request Nos. 51 and 53: Work Performed While on Leave Requests
Plaintiff states that these requests seek documents evidencing that
Plaintiff logged onto Imperial Management’s computer systems and/or network or
performed work for Imperial Management while he was on leave, which goes to the
disputed issue of whether Plaintiff was paid for all the time he worked while
he was at Imperial Management. (Decker Decl. at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff argues
that the responses are deficient because Imperial Management only produced some
emails, which were not responsive to Request No. 51 (logins) and Request No. 53
(all work performed).
In opposition, Imperial Management asserts that it produced all documents
in its custody and control after a reasonable and diligent search. On January
5, 2024, Imperial Management states it provided a further response to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production, including Requests No. 51 and 53 and
produced documents that “evidenced” when Plaintiff was “working on leave.”
In reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that further responses as to Requests
Nos. 51 and 53 were served on January 10, 2024, nearly 6 months after the
initial requests had been served, but he states that the only documents
produced were a handful of emails which were either not responsive at all,
(Request No. 51 asks for Plaintiff’s logins to Imperial Management’s computer systems and/or
network while Plaintiff was on leave), or clearly incomplete, (Request No. 53
asks for all documents evidencing the work that Plaintiff performed for Imperial
Management while he was on leave). (See Decker Decl. at ¶¶ 2, 12 and 19,
Exhs. A and L.)
B. Request Numbers 70-72 and 76: Alter Ego, Additional Co-Defendants,
and Business Records Requests.
Plaintiff states that these requests are all focused on Plaintiff’s alter
ego claims, identifying additional potential co-defendants, seeking basic
business records, and confirming the identity of Plaintiff’s and the other
injured employees’ employer, which is, in this case, a disputed issue. (See
Decker Decl. at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff also states that these requests are
standard requests in these types of alter ego and employment cases and for
these types of claims, and that they are neither harassing nor overly intrusive
as they mostly ask only for documents evidencing various facts, versus all
responsive documents, and seek common business records. Request Nos. 70-71 seek evidence of monies Imperial
Management exchanged with the other named defendants and with other entities
that they might control. Request Nos. 72 seeks Defendant IMSG’s operating
agreement. See id. And Request No. 76 seeks evidence of “property and/or
locations owned and/or operated by” Imperial Management. Imperial Management responded
to these requests solely with meritless, almost entirely duplicative, and
boilerplate objections claiming, amongst other things, that these requests
would cause it annoyance and embarrassment and that the requested information
was a trade secret. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ counsel assured him that
further response would be provided, but instead raised meritless objections.
Plaintiff also points out that Imperial Management did not request the requests
to be narrowed. Finally, Plaintiff states that despite entering into a
protective order to alleviate any concerns Imperial Management might have as to
confidential, proprietary, or private information being made public, Imperial
Management continued to refuse to produce any documents in response to these
requests.
In opposition, Imperial Management argues that Plaintiff’s requests for
financial records are entirely overbroad and harassing, as they seek all
documents, for the last six years, that refer to, among other things, Imperial
Management’s profits, income, bank accounts and lines of credit, investments,
checks issued, agreements, leases, business expenses, loans made or received,
credit card bills, and documents prepared by accountants and bookkeepers.
Imperial Management asserts that the gravamen of Plaintiff s complaint is
Plaintiff’s wage and hour and alleged labor code violation, and Defendants have
provided all documents responsive to requests related to these issues that are
in Defendant’s custody and control. (See Lopez Decl. ¶ 17.) Imperial
Management argues that alter ego is not a material issue in the case that would
justify Plaintiff’s unnecessarily intrusive discovery requests. Imperial
Management states that the requests are severely invasive of Defendant’s
privacy, and the responses would require an excessive amount of time and
expense that would unduly burden Imperial Management, particularly where
Plaintiff has made absolutely no effort to attempt to obtain the same or
similar information from any other means. Further, Imperial Management states
that Plaintiff has not explained how documents showing all of Imperial
Management’s financial affairs are directly relevant to this action or why
there is a compelling public need for virtually all of Imperial Management’s financial
information for the past six years when the lawsuit only applies to
approximately two years worth of time and is based on alleged unpaid wages for work.
In reply, Plaintiff states that contrary to Imperial Management’s
assertions, two of these four requests do not seek any financial records.
Rather, Request No. 72 seeks Imperial Management’s operating agreement and
Request No. 76 seeks evidence of “property and/or locations owned and/or
operated by” Imperial Management. (See Decker Decl. at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) With regard to the remaining two requests that
actually do seek financial information, Plaintiff claims these requests are not
as broad as Imperial Management has painted them out to be. Request No. 70
seeks only documents evidencing monies Imperial Management exchanged with Defendant
Paveljit Singh Bindra, and Request No. 71 seeks only one category of documents,
the bank records of Imperial Management, not the “investments”, “agreements”,
“leases”, or “documents prepared by accountants and bookkeepers” for Imperial
Management that Defendant wrongly claims it seeks. Plaintiff explains that
these bank records are not only relevant to Plaintiff’s alter ego claims, but
also to his whistleblowing claims (First Cause of Action) regarding undercapitalization
and insufficient funds to cover the IBNR of Defendant Imperial Health Holdings
and/or Defendant Imperial Management.
C. Request No. 73: Ownership Request
Plaintiff states this request asked for “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing the
owners of” Imperial Management. (See Decker Decl. at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff
claims this is a standard request and narrowly tailored, and Imperial
Management agreed to “produce all documents or things in the demanded category
that are in the possession, custody, or control of Responding Party and to
which no objection is being made.” (See id. at ¶ 3, Exh. C.) However,
Plaintiff asserts that none of the documents produced actually identify any of
the owners of Imperial Management. (See id. at ¶ 20, Exh. Q.) Also,
Plaintiff states that Imperial Management identified corporate documents of Defendant
Imperial Health Holding and unnamed Imperial Health Holding AOC, LLC as
responsive to Request No. 73 but the documents did not explain the ownership
interests of these two entities in Imperial Management. (See id.)
In opposition, Imperial Management states that this request is intrusive,
irrelevant, and seeks confidential and private information. It states that the
request seeks the following information with respect to the “owners of Imperial
Management.” Imperial Management argues that a careful balancing is required in
determining whether disclosure is required. Here, Imperial Management reasons
that information relating to the identity of owners of Defendant during an
unspecified period is simply not relevant to the dispute at issue. Further,
such information is subject to protection on the grounds it is private. (See
Life Technology Corp. v. Superior Court (Joyce) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th
640, 651-655 [explaining that the analytical framework for assessing privacy
claims involves a determination of whether a compelling need for the
information outweighs the privacy interests, taking into consideration whether
less intrusive means exist to obtain the information].)
In
reply, Plaintiff contends that despite
Imperial Management’s initial agreement to produce documents evidencing the
ownership of Imperial Management, the documents provided were inadequate and
did not include any information about the ownership interests of Defendant
Imperial Health Holdings or Imperial Health Holding AOC, LLC in Imperial
Management. Plaintiff argues that this failure persisted even after Imperial
Management asserted that the request for such documents was improper based on
privacy concerns, which Plaintiff argues are irrelevant given the nature of the
request and the protective order in place.
D. Request Number 74: Officers Request.
Request No. 74 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS evidencing the officers of” Imperial
Management. (See Decker Decl. at ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff states that although
Imperial Management agreed to produce documents in response to this request, it
also raised numerous objections, making it unclear if any responsive documents
had been withheld on the basis of an objection. (See id. at ¶ 3, Exh. C.)
Despite multiple meet and confers, Plaintiff claims that Counsel for Defendants
was unable to confirm if any documents had been withheld or on what basis. (See
id. at ¶¶ 5-8, 10-16, Exhs. E-L and N-P.)
In opposition, Imperial Management contends that the request for
documents under Request No. 74 is overly broad and unduly intrusive, motivated
by unsupported alter-ego allegations. It argues that these allegations serve as
a pretext to gain access to private, personal, and financial information that
is irrelevant to the primary legal issues in the case, which revolve around
alleged wage and hour violations and labor code breaches. Imperial Management
emphasizes that alter ego is not a material issue in this case and does not
justify the breadth of the discovery request.
In reply, Plaintiff contends that Imperial Management’s opposition to
producing documents in response to Request No. 74 contains misleading arguments
and fabrications aimed at obscuring their failure to comply with discovery
obligations. Despite initially agreeing to produce documents evidencing the
officers of Imperial Management, Defendant failed confirmed whether all
responsive documents have been produced or if some have been withheld, and if
so, why. Plaintiff highlights that throughout the discovery process and
numerous meet and confer sessions, Imperial Management has not provided clarity
on the production of these documents. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Imperial
Management’s claim that Request No. 74 is overbroad and could include
irrelevant information such as past transaction details and third-party
information is an unreasonable interpretation of the request as the request
explicitly seeks documents evidencing the officers of Imperial Management,
which is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff reasons that this
information is crucial for establishing alter ego claims, identifying potential
co-defendants, and understanding the decision-making structure related to
Plaintiff's termination—information that Defendant asserts does not exist in
any documented form.
The Court finds that the requests are relevant to the issues in the case,
such as the issue of whether Plaintiff was paid for all the time he worked
while he was at Imperial Management and Plaintiff’s claims of alter ego. Upon
review of the requests and responses, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to further responses. As to RPD nos. 51 and 53, which seeks evidence
of Plaintiff logging onto company systems and performing work while on leave, the
Court agrees that the responses are deficient as the emails provided do not
adequately cover the logins (Request No. 51) or fully document all work
activities (Request No. 53) performed during his leave, contrary to the
explicit demands of these requests. As to RPD nos. 70-72 and 76, which seek to
substantiate alter ego claims and gather basic business records, the Court
finds the objections to be meritless. The Court notes that not all of these
requests seek financial records. Specifically, Requests Nos. 72 and 76 ask for
corporate governance documents and property details, which are pertinent to
understanding the operational structure and asset management of the company. As
to RPD no. 73, the ownership details sought in this request are intended to
uncover the relationships and control mechanisms within and between the
corporate entities involved. The Court finds this information to be important
not only for the alter ego theory but also for understanding the
decision-making processes and liability structures within the corporate
hierarchy, which impacts issues like liability for wrongful termination or
other corporate actions. Imperial Management’s responses are deficient as it
fails to sufficiently correspond to these requests.
Thus, the Court grants
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Imperial Management for
RPD nos. 51, 53, 70-72, 73, and
76.
RPDs as to Paveljit
Singh Bindra
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant Paveljit Sing Bindra
(“Bindra”) to provide further responses and produce documents in response to
RPD Nos. 1, 4-6, 58-61, and monetary sanctions.
The parties make the same arguments regarding the facts of the discovery
issues and document production as in the Imperial Health motion.
A. Request Numbers 1, 4, and 58-61: Alter Ego, Additional
Co-Defendants, and Confirming Identity of Employer Requests.
Requests Nos. 1, 4, and 58-61, focus on substantiating alter ego claims,
identifying potential co-defendants, and confirming the identity of the
employer. Plaintiff argues that these are all pivotal issues disputed in the
case. Further, Plaintiff claims these requests are considered standard and are
narrowly tailored to gather only pertinent documents within a five-year scope,
directly related to specific named Defendants. The requests include seeking
documentation of all businesses associated with Defendant Bindra as an owner,
shareholder, director, or managing member since January 1, 2018, as well as
evidence of financial transactions and property controlled by Bindra. Plaintiff
takes issue with Bindra’s response to these requests which consist of generic,
duplicative objections that were unmerited, citing concerns over annoyance,
embarrassment, and the overbreadth of terms like “owner,” as well as claiming
that the requested information constituted trade secrets. Despite repeated
promises for amended responses to clarify these objections, Plaintiff states no
such responses have been forthcoming. Moreover, Plaintiff points out that
Bindra did not seek to narrow the requests nor did he provide any compromise,
even under the protection of a confidentiality order intended to shield
sensitive information.
In opposition, Bindra argues that Plaintiff's discovery requests,
particularly those regarding his financial records and corporate affiliations,
are overly broad and constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. He contends
that these requests are not justified by the actual needs of the case,
emphasizing that the primary issues revolve around wage and hour claims rather than
the alter ego allegations which the Plaintiff has failed to substantiate.
Bindra points out that the scope of discovery is not limitless and should be
curtailed when the burden and intrusiveness of the request outweigh the
likelihood of uncovering relevant, admissible evidence, as stated in the
California Civil Procedure Code § 2017.020(a). Bindra stresses that the
requests for extensive financial information over a six-year period are
unnecessarily invasive and irrelevant, particularly as the lawsuit focuses on a
much shorter timeframe and specific wage-related claims. He notes that the disclosure
of such financial details would not only be excessive but also burdensome,
potentially giving the Plaintiff an undue advantage in settlement negotiations.
Moreover, Bindra raises significant
privacy concerns, arguing that Plaintif’'s demands infringe upon his
constitutional rights to privacy. He points out that the requests do not meet
the threshold of demonstrating a compelling need for the information that would
justify such a serious invasion of privacy. Bindra asserts that any relevant
information should be obtainable through less intrusive means, and that the
Plaintiff has not made sufficient efforts to explore these alternatives.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that Bindra has intentionally misrepresented
the nature of the discovery requests and failed to produce any relevant
documents, acting in bad faith. Specifically, Plaintiff refutes Bindra's claim
that the requests, such as Request No. 1 and Request No. 4, sought exhaustive
financial records. Instead, these requests were clearly limited to documents “sufficient
to evidence” Bindra’s involvement as an owner, shareholder, director, or
managing member in specific businesses since January 1, 2018, without demanding
exhaustive financial details. Similarly, Requests Nos. 58-61 were targeted,
seeking evidence of monetary exchanges with named defendants, Bindra’s bank
records, and properties operated by Bindra, not the extensive range of
financial documents Bindra claimed was requested. Plaintiff emphasizes that no
documents were marked as confidential and produced under the protective order,
highlighting Bindra’s non-compliance. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the
necessity for these documents extends beyond proving alter ego claims—they are
also critical for identifying potential co-defendants and verifying the actual
employer of Plaintiff and other involved employees, which are central disputed
issues in the case.
B. Request Nos. 5 and 6: Ownership and Control Requests.
As to these requests, Plaintiff argues that they aim to collect details
about Bindra’s job titles, duties, and responsibilities since January 1, 2018,
at two specific entities where he has been employed. Plaintiff claims such
information is pivotal not only for establishing Bindra’s direct involvement
and influence within these entities but also for validating Plaintiff’s and
other injured employees’ claims about the actual structure of their employment.
In response to these requests, Bindra initially produced no documents, instead
raising multiple objections that Plaintiff describes as completely baseless,
including claims that the information sought constituted trade secrets and that
responding would cause undue burden and expense. Months later, despite numerous
efforts to negotiate and clarify through meet and confer sessions, Plaintiff
asserts that Bindra’s subsequent responses remained inadequate—asserting that
no such documents exist, which Plaintiff argues is highly improbable given
Bindra’s acknowledged roles in these companies over the past five years. Plaintiff
contends that it is implausible for there to be no records whatsoever of Bindra’s
official capacities, suggesting that at least some documentation like
appointment letters, employment agreements, or even business cards must exist.
The lack of any such evidence, despite promises for further responses, points
to a deliberate attempt to withhold information.
In opposition, Bindra argues that his response to Requests Nos. 5 and 6,
which sought documents detailing his job descriptions within the named
entities, was entirely appropriate and in full compliance with the Code of
Civil Procedure § 2031.210. He asserts that after conducting a reasonable and
diligent search, no such documents were found, and he has clearly communicated
this to the Plaintiff. Bindra challenges the notion, implied by the Plaintiff,
that he should create job descriptions retroactively merely to satisfy the
request, characterizing this expectation as unreasonable. Furthermore, Bindra
contends that Plaintiff’s continued demands for documents that do not exist
amount to a fishing expedition, seeking to compel the production of evidence
without any basis to believe that such evidence is available or relevant. He
argues that he has already provided all available and reasonable information
pertinent to the requests and that imposing sanctions for his inability to
produce non-existent documents would be unjust.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that Bindra’s responses to Requests Nos. 5 and
6, which concern his job titles, duties, and descriptions at Imperial Health
Holdings and Imperial Management Service Group, LLC, were intentionally evasive
and misleading. Initially, Bindra labeled these job-related requests as “trade
secrets” and “improper,” refusing to respond. Months later, he provided further
and amended responses claiming no documents existed that could evidence any
positions he held within these companies—despite these being his sole employers
over the last five years. During a meet and confer on January 26, 2024,
Plaintiff’s counsel questioned the plausibility of Bindra’s claim that no
documents existed, especially considering standard employment documentation
such as appointment letters, employment agreements, or even business cards.
Despite promises from Bindra’s counsel to provide supplemental responses by
February 2, 2024, none were forthcoming. Plaintiff contends that Bindra’s
failure to produce any evidence or even plausible explanations for the absence
of such documents, while simultaneously verifying discovery responses for these
entities, points to a deliberate attempt to obstruct the discovery process.
The Court finds that the requests are relevant to the issues in this
case. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the documents sought in Requests Nos. 1,
4, and 58-61 are necessary for substantiating the alter ego claims, identifying
potential co-defendants, and verifying the identity of the employer. Similarly,
Requests Nos. 5 and 6, which seek information on Defendant Bindra’s roles
within the implicated entities, are necessary for establishing the structure
and operational realities of these businesses, which are directly related to
Plaintiff’s employment and the overarching legal claims. The Court also notes
that despite Bindra’s assertions that the requests are overly broad and
intrusive, he has not sufficiently demonstrated that the burden or
intrusiveness of the discovery outweighs its potential benefit. Instead,
Bindra’s responses remain deficient and lack substantive compliance with the
requests made. Moreover, the protective order already in place mitigates
concerns regarding confidentiality and privacy, suggesting that Bindra’s
privacy objections may be overstated, especially considering the
professional—not personal—nature of the requested documents.
Thus, the Court grants
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Bindra RPD nos. 1, 4-6, and 58-61.
Monetary Sanctions
As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to
sanctions.
As to the Imperial Health motion, Plaintiff requests
sanctions in the amount of $4,268.50 ($515 hourly rate at 4.9 hours on the
motion, 3 hours responding to opposition and preparing for hearing, and at
least $200 filing fees).
As to the Imperial Management motion, Plaintiff requests
sanctions in the amount of $4,320.00 ($515 hourly rate at 5 hours on the
motion, 3 hours responding to opposition and preparing for hearing, and at
least $200 filing fees).
As to the Bindra motion, Plaintiff requests sanctions in
the amount of $7,255.50 ($515 hourly rate at 8.7 hours on the motion, 5 hours
responding to opposition and preparing for hearing, and at least $200 filing
fees).
The Court finds the hourly rate to be reasonable, but
reduces the hours worked as follows:
·
Imperial Health
Motion
o
2 hours for
motion
o
2 hour to
review opposition and draft reply
o
1 hour to
attend hearing
o
$60 filing fee
o =$2,635.00
·
Imperial
Management Motion
o
2 hours for
motion
o
2 hour to
review opposition and draft reply
o
1 hour to
attend hearing
o
$60 filing fee
o =$2,635.00
·
Bindra Motion
o
2 hours for
motion
o
2 hour to
review opposition and draft reply
o
1 hour to
attend hearing
o
$60 filing fee
o =$2,635.00
Thus, Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the total amount of
$7,905.00.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further discovery responses to Request for Production of
Documents as to Defendants Imperial Health Holdings, Imperial Management
Service Group, LLC, and Paveljit Singh Bindra.is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the amount of $7,905.00.
Plaintiff
to give notice.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated: June 5, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org