Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00258, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00258    Hearing Date: December 1, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Coy Williard (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was employed by Defendant Kahala Franchising, LLC dba The Counter Custom Burger #32014 (“The Counter”) and Defendant Shay Production, Inc. (“Shay”).  He alleges that on May 9, 2022, Shay hired him to work as an assistant general manager at The Counter and was offered $60,000 a year upon being hired by general manager Alix Lee and owner/Defendant Sherri Homayounian (“Homayounian”).  Plaintiff alleges that when he first began working at The Counter, he got along with Homayounian well, but then her behavior became erratic in April 2022.  Plaintiff alleges that he would call him and the other employees “dumbass” and “fuck head,” would brag about her drunken escapades, and made sexually charged statements. 

Plaintiff alleges that on May 16, 2022, he was called early into work by Homayounian to discuss the busy restaurant, but at the end of the meeting she thanked Plaintiff and kissed him on the lips.  Plaintiff alleges he was shocked and distanced himself and told Homayounian that her behavior was not okay.  Plaintiff also alleges incidents where Homayounian asked Plaintiff to cover her shift on July 19, 2022 because she was “hung over” and offered to pay him $100 under the table, which he refused.  Plaintiff alleges that Homayounian began to retaliate against him because he was not willing to cover her shifts.  He alleges that he sent Ms. Lee a letter reporting Homayounian’s behavior on July 25, 2022.  On July 29, 2022, he was called into a meeting by Ali Homayounian (Homayounian’s father and part owner of The Counter, “Mr. Homayounian”) and Ms. Lee, where he was presented with a negative performance review.  Plaintiff alleges he was thereafter terminated by Mr. Homayounian on July 29, 2022. 

The complaint, filed February 1, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (4) retaliation (Labor Code, §§ 98.6, 1102.5); and (5) wrongful termination.

On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Defendant Kahala Franchising, LLC dba The Counter Custom Burger #32014.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Shay Production, Inc.’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). 

On November 16, 2023, Shay filed opposition papers. 

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel Shay’s further response to SROG No. 3. 

            SROG No. 3 asks Shay to identify each person who worked at the workplace during the same hours and dates with Plaintiff worked for Shay during his employment with Shay.  (Plaintiff defined “identify” as the address, phone number, email address, and job title of the person identified.)  Shay objected on the ground that the SROG was vague, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, violates a right of privacy, seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, seeks trade secret and confidential/financial information, is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and cumulative/duplicative.  Without waiving objections, Shay referred Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s personnel and payroll records.

             Plaintiff argues that a further response is warranted because the phone numbers and addresses of the employees who had worked at the same time as Plaintiff were not provided.  He also argues that the personnel and payroll records were redacted and did not include a complete list of employees that Plaintiff worked with or their contact information.  He argues that the information is necessary because he does not recall the name of the employees he worked with and he does not know which employees may have witnessed the harassment he endured.  In opposition, Shay argues that the SROG is overbroad because it seeks information about all employees regardless of whether that individual had knowledge about Plaintiff’s allegations and that doing so would violate their privacy. 

            While the Court recognizes Shay’s concerns, the Court will order a further response.  Plaintiff was employed by Shay at The Counter from May 9, 2022 to July 29, 2022.  Thus, the SROG seeks approximately 2-3 months of information regarding the names, contact information, and job titles of the employees at the time Plaintiff worked at the restaurant location.  This is a limited time period for a single location, such that the request is not overbroad.  The SROG does not seek the financial information of these employees nor their employee/personnel files.  At most, it seeks basic contact information of witnesses.  This information is relevant to the action and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Further, the objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, trade secret, and confidentiality are overruled. 

            The motion is granted as to SROG No. 3.

            Plaintiff requests $3,291.55 in sanctions, which Plaintiff’s counsel states was calculated by taking the sum of 2 hours to meet and confer, 3 hours to prepare the motion, 1 anticipated hour for the reply, and 1 anticipated hour for the hearing at $275/hour, plus $60 in filing fees.  However, based on the Court’s calculation, 7 hours multiplied by $275/hour, plus $60 in filing fees amounts to $1,985.  The Court finds that a reasonable amount of sanctions for this motion is $610.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Shay Production, Inc.’s further responses to SROG No. 3 is granted.  Defendant is ordered to provide a further response within 20 days of notice of this order.  Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $610 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.