Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV08898, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08898    Hearing Date: November 28, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s motion is granted as to all topics but Mr. Linstone’s role in the termination process. 

On 3/5/2021, Plaintiff Cynthia Bowman (Plaintiff) filed suit against Lamps Plus, Inc., Lamps Plus Holdings, Inc., and Cindy Beeson, alleging: (1) discrimination on the basis of age; (2) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) wrongful termination; (4) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

            On 5/17/2021, Plaintiff dismissed Cindy Beeson from this action.

            Now, Defendant Lamps Plus, Inc. (Defendant) seeks a protective order regarding the deposition of Lamps Plus, Inc.’s President Clark Linstone.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that it is entitled to a protective order precluding Plaintiff from taking Mr. Linstone’s deposition because: (1) other employees of Defendant with superior knowledge to Mr. Linstone have testified at deposition regarding Plaintiff's selection for termination; (2) the specific area of inquiry regarding furloughs versus terminations of employees was covered during the deposition of Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable regarding the COVID-19 layoffs; and (3) the specific area of inquiry regarding furloughs versus terminations of employees is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of Plaintiff's claims and is not relevant to any issue in this case.

            The Court agrees and disagrees in part.

 As to the first issue, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Linstone has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information regarding Plaintiff’s selection for termination. In support, it cites River City Testing v. Cohen (C.D. Cal. 2021) 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130044 [granting a protective order protecting a high-ranking official from deposition where the official was the unilateral final decision-maker with respect to plaintiff's termination, but made that decision based on second-hand information].)

However, in opposition, Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to depose Mr. Linstone regarding his role in the termination process, including on issues such as: “What factors did he use in evaluating the lists of employees given to him by his senior staff? Did he “rubber stamp” the terminations of the employees submitted to him? Did he provide any guidance to senior staff other than Evans and Shipley in determining who could be terminated? Did he request additional names from any senior staff member? Did he perform any safeguards to guarantee that the employees being terminated did not result in a disparate impact to any specific class of employee (e.g. older employees, higher earners, etc.)” (Motion, 5: 4-14.)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to depose Mr. Linstone in order to determine the precise scope of his role in Plaintiff’s termination. While the Court agrees with Defendant that Mr. Linstone’s relevance is limited if he merely “rubber stamped” the terminations submitted to him, Plaintiff is entitled to discover whether this was, in fact, the role he played in the decision to terminate her.

            As to the second issue, Plaintiff has already deposed Defendant’s PMK regarding the COVID-19 layoffs. As such, Mr. Linstone’s testimony would be duplicative. To the extend Plaintiff seeks additional information relating to this area of inquiry, Plaintiff has not sought or exhausted less intrusive means to discover such information. (See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289.)

            Finally, as to the third issue, Defendant’s PMK testified that the department in which Plaintiff worked was not given the option of selecting employees for furlough versus termination. As such, Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Linstone has any unique or superior knowledge relevant to Plaintiff’s claim concerning the subject of furloughs versus termination of employees.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motion is granted as to all topics but Mr. Linstone’s role in the termination process.  

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.