Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00036585-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 07, 2024

03/07/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00036585-CU-OE-CTL WHITE VS EL CAJON POST ACUTE LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 01/11/2024

1. The Motion (ROA # 56, 83) of Plaintiff Kristi Lynn White ('Plaintiff') to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant El Cajon Post Acute, LLC ('Defendant'), and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and / or its counsel, Fisher & Phillips LLP, is, on the Court's own motion, CONTINUED to April 18, 2024 at 1:30 PM in D 73.

The Court has read and considered Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ('FAC' - ROA # 10) which asserts a Paga claim (see, in particular par. 110), Defendant's Answer (ROA # 13), the Court's order (ROA # 25) in which 'Plaintiff's class action claims in his operative complaint are dismissed,' and Defendant's Motion (ROA # 70) for summary judgment in which Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Paga claim is 'time-barred' (see ROA # 71 at page 1, lines 10 - 11).

Defendant's Request (ROA # 93) for judicial notice is DENIED.

Defendant's evidentiary objections (ROA # 94) are OVERRULED.

Defendant's objections are, except as noted, OVERRULED. The Request seeks documents which are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not privileged except as follows: First, the evidence sought is relevant if not time-barred. Second, the evidence sought is not protected by a privacy privilege as long as notice is provided to the alleged aggrieved employees.

The Court will determine at the hearing of Defendant's Motion (ROA # 70) whether Plaintiff's Paga claim is time-barred. If so, this Motion is DENIED. If not, Defendant's relevancy objection is OVERRULED.

Further, the parties will still need to implement a process to ensure that the alleged aggrieved employees are provided with notice and an opportunity to opt out of this proceeding. Finally, the scope ('All DOCUMENTS') of nos. 3 and 5 are overbroad and will need to be narrowed. To the extent not DENIED (as a result of the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for summary judgment), counsel are directed to confer on the notice process and scope and be prepared to provide the Court with proposals, if not an agreement, at the continued hearing.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant has not acted without substantial justification.

_____ Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3085106  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WHITE VS EL CAJON POST ACUTE LLC [E-FILE]  37-2022-00036585-CU-OE-CTL 2. The Motion (ROA # 63, 82) of Plaintiff Kristi Lynn White ('Plaintiff') to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One from Defendant El Cajon Post Acute, LLC ('Defendant'), and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and / or its counsel, Fisher & Phillips LLP, is, on the Court's own motion, CONTINUED to April 18, 2024 at 1:30 PM in D 73.

The Court has read and considered Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ('FAC' - ROA # 10) which asserts a Paga claim (see, in particular par. 110), Defendant's Answer (ROA # 13), the Court's order (ROA # 25) in which 'Plaintiff's class action claims in his operative complaint are dismissed,' and Defendant's Motion (ROA # 70) for summary judgment in which Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Paga claim is 'time-barred' (see ROA # 71 at page 1, lines 10 - 11).

Defendant's evidentiary objections (ROA # 88) are OVERRULED.

Defendant's Request (ROA # 89) for judicial notice is DENIED.

Defendant's objections are, except as noted, OVERRULED. The Interrogatories seek information which is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is not privileged except as follows: First, the evidence sought is relevant if not time-barred. Second, the evidence sought is not protected by a privacy privilege as long as the notice is provided to the alleged aggrieved employees.

The Court will determine at the hearing of Defendant's Motion (ROA # 70) whether Plaintiff's Paga claim is time-barred. If so, this Motion is DENIED. If not, Defendant's relevancy objection is OVERRULED.

Further, the parties will still need to implement a process to ensure that the alleged aggrieved employees are provided with notice and an opportunity to opt out of this proceeding. To the extent not DENIED (as a result of the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for summary judgment), counsel are directed to confer on the notice process and scope and be prepared to provide the Court with proposals, if not an agreement, at the continued hearing.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant has not acted without substantial justification.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3085106  15