Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV45921, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45921    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel site inspection is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

            On 12/16/2021, Martha Del Campo (Plaintiff) filed suit against VSV Mutual Group, Inc (VSV) and Sevan Toroussian, alleging: (1) whistleblower violations; (2) unsafe workplace violations; (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (4) failure to pay wages in violation of California Labor Code section 201; (5)  failure to furnish compliant wage statements and maintain accurate pay records; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) unfair business practices; (8) retaliation and wrongful termination of public policy.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel VSV to allow a site inspection, Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.

Legal Standard

“A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on¿the demanding¿party's behalf, to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (d).) 

Discussion 

            Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to an inspection of her former workplace. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to inspect: “the common areas for employees; breakrooms; storage areas; grow rooms’; Plaintiff’s work station; areas where Plaintiff was required to perform her tasks; cafeteria/lunch and rest areas; parking areas; areas where safety equipment is kept; Human Resources department; the offices of supervisors Mauro Lara and Anzhela Gevorkyan; areas containing logbooks concerning safety compliance from 2018 to present; areas containing logbooks for METRC Cannabis Transportation Manifests from 2018 to present; security monitors/equipment; and the location and rooms where all surveillance cameras, video and recording equipment devices are kept and maintained.” (Motion, 1:19-2:3.)

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not adequately meet-and-confer on this motion. More specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer “made no attempt to address the scope of the inspection nor any of the other issues raised by Defendant’s objections but merely demanded an alternative date for the inspection as if the date were the only issue.” (Opp., 1: 6-8.)

            After review, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff did not adequately meet-and-confer before filing this motion. To satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement, the moving party must make a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by the motion. (C.C.P. § 2030.300)

            Here, Plaintiff served a broad demand for inspection unilaterally demanding an inspection for 9/12/2022. On 9/6/2022, Defendants served objections indicating unavailability on 9/12/2022 and raised other grounds for objection. On 9/7/2022, Plaintiff’s counsel requested Defendants' counsel to provide alternative dates for the site inspection by the end of the week. Plaintiff thereafter filed and served this motion.

            As such, Plaintiff has not actually engaged in any efforts to meet and confer. Plaintiff did not engage in any discussions about Defendants’ substantive objections around the scope of the demand, nor did Plaintiff engage in any discussions about scheduling. Rather, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ response by requesting dates by the end of the week, and then filed this motion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel site inspection is denied, without prejudice.

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.