Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23GDCV02348, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV02348 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: August
12, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: No date set.
CASE: Madison Zavala, an
individual, v. AMAZON.COM INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company; AMAZON RETAIL, LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
CHRISTOPHER HERRERA, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 23GDCV02348
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Madison Zavala
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants
Amazon.com Services, LLC and Amazon Retail, LLC
SERVICE: Filed May 28,
2024
OPPOSITION: Filed July 29, 2024
REPLY: None filed.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for an
order compelling Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC and Defendant Amazon
Retail, LLC (collectively “Amazon Defendants”) to serve full and complete
verified responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories–General
Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6 and Form Interrogatory–Employment No. 207.2 without
objections forthwith.
Plaintiff also requests
sanctions in the amount of $5,400 against Amazon Defendants and their counsel
of record.
BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed
a complaint, alleging Amazon Defendants failed to investigate and retaliated
against her after she reported that her supervisor, Defendant Christopher
Herrera, was sexually harassing her. Plaintiff’s set of form interrogatories
sought information directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’
defenses. According to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Amazon Defendants refused
to produce the contact information of at least six witnesses who 1) also
complained to Amazon Defendants about Herrera shortly before Plaintiff, 2) were
interviewed as witnesses to Plaintiff’s complaints, and/or 3) were interviewed
as a part of an investigation into a retaliatory performance writeup following
Plaintiff’s sexual harassment complaints. Amazon Defendants agreed to provide a
a list of current employees who could be contacted through counsel and refuse
to produce the contact information for former employees absent their consent or
a court order. Flechsig Decl. at ¶ 8-9. Thus, Plaintiff moves for
an order to compel further responses to specific interrogatories.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in
the amount of attorney’s fees expended in preparing this motion at $5,400 is
GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2030.300, a party who propounds interrogatories may move to compel
further responses if it deems the responding party’s responses are inadequate
or evasive, or their objections are without merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (a).) Under section 2030.300, subdivision (c), “[u]nless notice of this
motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing,
the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the
interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Likewise, a party
moving to compel further responses to demands for production of documents must
move to compel further responses within 45 days of service of the verified
response, or whatever later date the parties agree to in writing. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The 45-day deadline is mandatory and
jurisdictional. Thus, if the moving party fails to bring its motion to compel
within the deadline, the party waives its right to compel further responses and
the court cannot grant the motion. (Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court
(Halpern) (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)
Also, “[a] motion under subdivision
(a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) In addition, a motion
to compel further responses must include a separate statement of responses in
dispute. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.) The separate statement must
provide “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and
all the responses to it that are at issue”, including the text of the
interrogatory or request for 4 production, the response or objections, and the
reasons why a further response should be compelled. (Ibid.)
In addition, “[a] motion concerning
interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the
interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” (Ibid.) In addition,
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, “[n]otices must be in writing, and
the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the
grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to
be based. If any such paper has not previously been served upon the party to be
notified and was not filed by him, a copy of such paper must accompany the
notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010, italics added.)
DISCUSSION
On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff propounded her first set of form
interrogatories on Amazon Defendants. Flechsig Decl. at ¶ 3. On March 4,
2024, Amazon Defendants served their responses to the First Set of Form
Interrogatories (1) General and (2) Employment. Id. at ¶ 3-4. After
stipulation to a protective order and Amazon Defendants’ subsequent production
of responses and documents, Plaintiff asserts that the responses were
deficient. Plaintiff maintains that none of the documents provide any of the
requested witness contact information and the defendants refused to product
third party witness contact information for any former employees absent a court
order or express permission from the employee. Id. at ¶ 9.
Plaintiff
moves for an order to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form
Interrogatories–General Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6 and Form
Interrogatory–Employment No. 207.2. Plaintiff argues Amazon Defendants have
continued to refuse to provide the names and contact information of pertinent
witnesses. Plaintiff argues the interrogatories seek information directly
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses and are essential to
the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Plaintiff argues Amazon Defendants have
refused to produce the contact information of witnesses who were directly
involved in their purported investigations into Plaintiff’s sexual harassment
complaints. According to Plaintiff, the documents which Defendants incorporate
by reference as their response contain, identify at least six witnesses who 1)
also complained to Defendants Amazon about Herrera shortly before Plaintiff; 2)
were interviewed as witnesses to Plaintiff’s complaint and/or 3) were
interviewed as a part of an investigation into a retaliatory performance
writeup following Plaintiff’s sexual harassment complaints.
The opposition argues the
objections against disclosing former employee contact information were proper
on constitutional privacy grounds, and that the written responses were not
incomplete nor evasive. The opposition also argues sanctions against Amazon
Defendants and their counsel are not warranted. In the alternative, the Amazon
Defendants argue, if the Court finds disclosure is warranted, Amazon Defendants
request the Court to first order that former employees be provided notice and
an opportunity to object to disclosure; and that Plaintiff be ordered not to
further pursue the contact information of the former employees who object.
Code of Civil Procedure section
2017.010 “provides a broad right to discover any relevant information that is
not privileged, including the identity and location of witnesses.” (Crab
Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 965-966.) “ ‘[C]entral
to the discovery process is the identification of potential witnesses. “The
disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses” is a routine and
essential part of pretrial discovery. . . . Indeed, our discovery system is
founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and
contact information for possible witnesses as the starting point for further
investigations[.]’ ” (Id. at 966.)
However, the right to discovery “ ‘
is not absolute, particularly where issues of privacy are involved. The right of privacy in the California
Constitution (art. I, § 1), “protects the individual's reasonable expectation
of privacy against a serious invasion.” ’ ” (Ibid.) The court
must balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right. (Ibid.)
This “requires a careful evaluation of the privacy right asserted, the
magnitude of the imposition on that right, and the interests militating for and
against any intrusion on privacy.” (Ibid.) In conducting this
evaluation, the court must determine whether the person claiming the privacy
right has a “legally protected privacy interest”; whether the person has a
“reasonable expectation of privacy under the particular circumstances,
including the customs, practices, and physical settings surrounding particular
activities”; and whether the invasion of privacy is serious rather than
trivial. (Ibid.)
Amazon Defendants’ current and former employees have a legitimate
expectation of privacy in their contact information (i.e. addresses and
telephone numbers). However, “[w]hile contact information generally is
considered private, this ‘does not mean that the individuals would not want it
disclosed under these circumstances.’” (Id. at 967.) “While employees
would not likely want their contact information broadly disseminated, this does
not mean they would want it withheld ‘from plaintiffs seeking relief for violations
of employment laws in the workplace that they shared.’ . . . Rather, employees
similarly situated to petitioners ‘may reasonably be supposed to want their
information disclosed to counsel whose communications in the course of
investigating the claims asserted in [petitioners'] lawsuit may alert them to
similar claims they may be able to assert.’” (Ibid.)
The Court finds a serious invasion of privacy will not result if Amazon
Defendants are ordered to provide the contact information of former employees
identified in the supplemental discovery responses. The requested contact information,
while personal, is not particularly sensitive. The former employees have
already been identified by Defendants in the supplemental discovery responses
(i.e. former employees who were Plaintiff’s co-workers, individuals having
knowledge of the facts supporting Defendant’s denial or affirmative defenses,
etc.). Contact information for witnesses ordinarily is produced during
discovery, and it is neither unduly personal nor overly intrusive. (Ibid.)
Even assuming, arguendo, a serious invasion of privacy, the Court finds the
former employees’ privacy interests are outweighed by “the fundamental public
policy underlying California’s employment laws” implicated in this case, as
well as, the State’s compelling interests in “seeking the truth in court proceedings”
and “ensuring that those injured by the actionable conduct of others receive
full redress of those injuries.” (Id. at 968; see also Johnson v.
Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1071.)
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to
First Set of Form Interrogatories—General Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling
Amazon Defendants to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories
(“SI”) (General) nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.6. Defendants argue former
employees have constitutionally protected, and objectively reasonable
expectations of, privacy interests. Defendants request, if the Court finds
disclosure is warranted, the Court should first order former employees be
provided notice and opportunity to object; and that Plaintiff is ordered not to
further pursue their contact information from Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled
to conduct discovery to identify potential witnesses that have information
related to Plaintiff’s allegations. The request is reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The motions to compel further
response to SI (General) nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.6 will be granted. Defendant
is ordered to provide a supplemental response to this SI, without objection.
II.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to
First Set of Form Interrogatories—Employment No. 207.2
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Amazon Defendants to provide further
responses to SI (Employment) no. 207.2. Defendant argues and requests the same
as above. Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery to identify
potential witnesses that have information related to Plaintiff’s allegations.
The request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. The motions to compel further response to SI (Employment) no. 207.2
will be granted. Defendant is ordered to provide a supplemental response to
this SI, without objection.
III.
Amazon
Defendant’s Request
The Amazon Defendants request the
Court to first order that the six former employees be provided notice and an
opportunity to object to disclosure, and that Plaintiff be ordered not to
further pursue the contact information of those who object, from Amazon
Defendants. In Alch v. Superior
Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th
1412, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court abused its discretion
when it found that the nonparties’ privacy interests outweighed the plaintiffs’
need for evidence to prove their case without examining the various types of
information requested and balancing the sensitivity of the information against
its need in the litigation. (Alch v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.4th
1412, 1431-1439.) Disclosure was ordered based on the need for the information
against the sensitivity of the information. (Id. at 1427.) Here, the
Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s interest in the witness contact
information of former employees outweighs a right to privacy in relatively
nonsensitive contact information. Therefore, the Court orders Amazon Defendants
to grant Plaintiff access to the requested information.
The Court declines the Defendants’ request. The Court is not ordering a limit
to the dissemination of the witnesses’ contact information.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses to SI (General) nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.6, and SI (Employment)
no. 207.2 is GRANTED. Amazon Defendants are ordered to serve full and complete
verified responses to these interrogatories within 20 days.
Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the
amount of $5,400. This amount is also
due within 20 days.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: August 12, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court