Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV09386, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09386    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Tyler Brown (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Repligen Corporation (“Repligen”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RFP”), Set One, Nos. 15, 16, 23, 57, 69, 73, 74, 75, and 76. Plaintiff also requests as a discovery sanction attorney’s fees in the total amount of $6,120.00 in connection with the motion to compel.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Requests Number 57 and 69.  The remainder of the motion to compel in the original motion is moot as Repligen responded after the filing of this motion.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. 

Background

This is an employment action. Plaintiff filed this action against his former employer, Repligen, as well as several coworkers, on April 27, 2023, raising claims for (1) discrimination on the basis of disability; (2) failure to engage in the interactive process; (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (4) discrimination on the basis of veteran status; (5) harassment; (6) retaliation; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Repligen with Requests for Production, Set One, which included the discovery items at issue here. A long meet and confer process ensued, wherein Plaintiff’s counsel granted Defendant a series of extensions up to November 1, 2023. Repligen served responses on November 1, 2023, but did not provide verification or document production until December 1, 2023.

The parties then met and conferred over the adequacy of Repligen’s responses, and Plaintiff granted Repligen several extensions on time to provide supplemental responses, with the deadline ending up on March 15, 2024. Repligen supplemented on that date. Repligen’s supplemental responses changed from solely objections for the discovery at issue to statements that Repligen would comply, but Plaintiff contends that Repligen did not provide documents pursuant to those representations.

Plaintiff contacted Repligen on March 26, 2024, stating that Repligen’s supplemental responses were missing documents and did not properly identify which documents responded to which requests. Repligen’s counsel responded on March 27, 2024, stating that they had provided Plaintiff with all responsive documents and were not withholding anything. Repligen’s counsel stated that counsel was about to depart for a trip out of town, but would provide a more substantive response after returning on April 4, 2024.

Plaintiff states that  he filed this motion April 3, 2024, though the Court’s records show it to have been file-stamped April 10, 2024.  Repligen served additional document production on Plaintiff on April 19, 2024. Repligen filed an opposition on April 22, 2024 and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

“Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.”  (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 148 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

Requests for Production

“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

“(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

            (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

            (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.

(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.

… (h) Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

            The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)  Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Discussion

            In its reply brief, Plaintiff raises two remaining substantive issues:  Requests Nos. 57 and 69.  The Court rules as follows.

RFP No. 57: Repligen shall produce all responsive documents, including the entirety of any insurance policies that may cover it in this action.  Repligen shall make the production within 30 days. 

RFP No. 69: According to Plaintiff’s reply, no written response to RFP 69 was included Repligen’s supplemental responses.  Repligen shall serve a code-compliant response to this request within 30 days. 

Sanctions

            The Court denies sanctions because it finds that the opposition was substantially justified and that the circumstances here make an award of sanctions inappropriate.  The timeline appears to show Repligen working to comply with Plaintiff’s request and Plaintiff filing this motion while the efforts were ongoing.  Moreover, the scope of the Court’s grant of relief to Plaintiff is narrow and could have been amicably resolved by the parties with some additional effort.