Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV06583, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06583    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is DENIED. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

            On 2/23/2022, Plaintiff Christopher Rascon (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) racial discrimination; (2) racial harassment; (3) age discrimination; (4) age harassment; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent. 

            On 5/30/2024, Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two).

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set two) on the grounds that Defendant improperly objected to each of the requests. In particular:

[A]t issue are two interrogatory responses which unilaterally limit the scope of the information sought in two drastic ways: First, Defendants limit the scope by providing seven years of information instead of ten years, with no explanation as to why the extra three years are more harassing or irrelevant. Second, defendant improperly qualifies its responses to include the word permanent in their answer where the request does not mention such qualification—there has been no mention as to why this qualification was used in its responses, especially as most responsive positions would not be "permanent" positions such that this is a patent attempt to avoid relevant discovery through inappropriate sophistry, or why it would be particularly irrelevant or harassing to respond without said qualification.

            (Motion, 4: 5-14.)

            After review, the Court finds no good cause to compel further responses.

            First, in opposition, Defendant sets forth considerable evidence to show the inadequate meet and confer efforts from Plaintiff. As such, the Court finds a failure to attempt a good faith informal resolution of this issue.

            Second, the Court finds the temporal limitation of 2017-2023 to be reasonable. While Plaintiff has served in the Los Angeles County Fire Department for more than 20 years, what is relevant here is the time period when Plaintiff allegedly was prevented from obtaining a 40-hour per week position. Notably, the earliest date Plaintiff alleges he was prevented from obtaining a 40-hour per week position is 2021 or later. (See FAC ¶¶ 24 [“In 2021, Rascon applied for a training Captain position again with Captain Ramon Valdoria and Valdoria once again advised Rascon that his issues getting in was probably due to the previous problems he has had with Chapman.”]; 25-31 [alleging subsequent conduct after 2021 which led to Rascon making complaints and, in turn, to the Department retaliating against Rascon by preventing him from getting a 40-hour per week position].)

            Accordingly, the Court finds that 2017, as opposed to 2013, constitutes a reasonable temporal limitation.

            Third, Plaintiff contends that the County improperly objected to the term “position” as vague and ambiguous. However, as explained by Defendant in opposition:

However, as Plaintiff knows, “position” generally refers to permanent positions that are subject to the County’s merit classification system. Within the Department there are also detail assignments which are temporary in nature. Further, a fire fighter who has a disability or medical condition may be placed temporarily on a limited duty assignment. The interrogatory as drafted is ambiguous as to the scope of the request.

As County’s counsel informed Plaintiff, the County does not maintain its records to determine if Battalion Chiefs (BCs) for the last 10 years served in a 40-hour position, or not. Therefore, to obtain this information would be extremely time consuming and burdensome without the requisite showing of relevance. County’s use of the “permanent” in the response clarifies the parameter of the response as the County understands the question.

            (Opp., 6:22-7: 5.)

            As such, the Court accepts Defendant’s explanation that the “permanent” qualifier is intended to clarify that the response refers only to individuals who were permanently assigned to a 40-hour position, rather than individuals who may have been on a limited duty assignment due to various accommodations.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is denied. Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  July    , 2024

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.