Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2020-00027698-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 14, 2023

11/17/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00027698-CU-WT-CTL MAYFIELD VS AEROTEK INC [E-FILED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Sanctions, 09/27/2023

The Motion (ROA # 138) of Defendant Aerotek, Inc. ('Defendant' or 'Aerotek') for issue, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Timeeka Mayfield ('Plaintiff') and her counsel of record, John McCarthy and Alireza Alivandivafa for violation of this Court's June 30, 2023 Order, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

This case is acrimonious, with both sides engaging in combative conduct, which makes the Court's ability to evaluate this dispute more challenging than necessary.

The Court's prior order - ROA # 135 - states in part: 'Plaintiff's objections to no. 16 are OVERRULED. Plaintiff has waived her right to protect the privacy of any 'medical or psychological treatment (she) received as a result of the conduct alleged in (her) Complaint.' To the extent Plaintiff fails to produce these records, Plaintiff will be barred at trial from pursuing damages for the injuries which caused her to seek this treatment.

...

Plaintiff is directed to serve further responses, without objections except as specified above, and produce the records within twenty (20) days of the hearing of this Motion.' Plaintiff's response, as reflected in Defendant's separate statement at page 3, states: 'Subject to and without waiver of any objection sustained by the Court, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff will provide those non-privileged, responsive documents in her possession, custody or control and refers the propounding party to Mayfield 1 - 185.' In that the Court overruled Plaintiff's objections, Plaintiff's supplemental response is ambiguous if not evasive. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for 'medical or psychological treatment (she) received as a result of the conduct alleged in (her) Complaint' is limited to the medical or psychological treatment reflected in 'Mayfield 1 - 185.' The Court's prior order - ROA # 135 - states, in part: 'Though no. 18 is both ambiguous and compound (i.e., subparts), the Court agrees that Defendant is entitled to seek the identity of witnesses of Plaintiff's alleged injuries. The Court, on its own motion, clarifies no. 18 to direct Plaintiff to provide the identity of witnesses of Plaintiff's physical injuries, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029541 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MAYFIELD VS AEROTEK INC [E-FILED]  37-2020-00027698-CU-WT-CTL psychological injuries, mental and physical pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment as a result of AEROTEK's alleged conduct.

...

Plaintiff is directed to produce contact information that is in control of and most recent address with phone number of witness and current employee.' Plaintiff's supplemental response, as reflected Defendant's separate statement at pages 3 - 4, appears to identify Regi Abraham and Elisa Ruben as witnesses. There does not appear to be any contact information for either of these witnesses. Accordingly, Plaintiff is limited to relying upon these two lay witnesses to testify about Plaintiff's injuries on condition that Plaintiff serve their contact information within ten (10) days of the order of this Court. If Plaintiff does not timely serve the contact information, Plaintiff will not be permitted to rely upon either of these lay witnesses.

Defendant's Motion is, except as noted above, DENIED.

Plaintiff's counter request for sanctions against Defendant and Defendant Aerotek Inc. and its counsel of record, Michael S. Kun, Benjamin T. Runge and the law firm of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., is DENIED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029541