Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV13030, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV13030 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
RHONDA RUDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLC, et
al., Defendants. |
Case No:
23STCV13030 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Calendar Number: 4 |
Plaintiff Rhonda Rudolph (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel
Defendant Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (“Living Spaces”) to provide further
responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Living Spaces to produce
for deposition its Person Most Knowledgeable and Meghan Mabry. Plaintiff
additionally moves to compel Defendant Susana Grennon to appear for her
deposition.
Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas served by Defendant
Charlynn Lok (“Lok”) on non-parties Henkel Corporation (“Henkel”), Walt Disney
Company (“Disney”), Think Thin, and Carportland Company (“Carportland”).
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel the deposition of the Person
Most Knowledgeable. The deposition will occur either remotely or in La Mirada,
at the determination of Plaintiff’s counsel. The parties will bear their own
costs. The Court does not award sanctions because it finds that Living Spaces
acted with substantial justification.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Mabry’s deposition.
Mabry’s deposition will occur in person at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. All
attendees other than Mabry may attend remotely if they so choose. The parties
will bear their own costs. The Court does not award sanctions because it finds
that Defendants acted with substantial justification and met and conferred in
good faith.
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel Grennon’s deposition.
The parties will bear their own costs. The Court does not award sanctions
because it finds that Defendants acted with substantial justification.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to quash by limiting the
subpoenas to documents from 2016 to present.
The Court does not award sanctions requested by Defendant.
This is an employment action. Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant Living Spaces Furniture, LLC (“Living Spaces”). Plaintiff has
leukemia and alleges that Defendants Living Spaces, Charlynn Lok, and Susana
Grennon failed to accommodate and discriminated against her on the basis of her
medical condition.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 7, 2023, raising claims
for (1) wrongful termination in violation of FEHA; (2) wrongful termination in
violation of public policy; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to
provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in a good-faith
interactive process; (6) associational disability discrimination; (7) hostile
work environment; (8) unfair competition; and (9) assault.
On
September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the motion to compel further responses.
Living Spaces filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.
On
September 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the motion to quash. Lok filed an
opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.
On
October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the motion to compel depositions. Living
Spaces and Grennon jointly filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
“ ‘Relevant
evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a
witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or
disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.)
“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.)
“A deposition subpoena may command any of the following:
(a) Only the
attendance and the testimony of the deponent, under Article 3 (commencing with
Section 2020.310).
(b) Only the
production of business records for copying, under Article 4 (commencing with
Section 2020.410).
(c) The attendance
and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business
records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible
things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)
If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the
production of documents, the court may, upon motion reasonably made, make an
order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance
with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including
protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
In making an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including
reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed
in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the
requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd.
(a).)
“ ‘Failure to [timely move to compel] within the specified
period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response; indeed,
similar provisions have been held at least quasi-jurisdictional. [Citations.] We
do not believe the 45-day limitation is ‘jurisdictional’ in the fundamental
sense, but is only ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court
without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton
v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
The parties agreed to an extension of Plaintiff’s deadline
to September 20, 2024. (Chang Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. G.)
Plaintiff filed her motion to compel further responses on
September 24, 2024. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore not timely. Plaintiff does
not provide any substantive argument in response to the issue of whether her
motion is timely.
While Living Spaces’ opposition was not timely filed, the
quasi-jurisdictional bar still remains. Plaintiff argues that Living Spaces has
waived its timeliness argument by opposing Plaintiff’s motion on the merits,
but cites no authority in support of this proposition.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is untimely and therefore denies the motion.
Living Spaces offered to produce its Person Most
Knowledgeable (“PMK”), but stated that the deposition would need to occur in La
Mirada because the PMK deponent has a child with serious medical conditions and
cannot travel to Pasadena in case an emergency arises. Living Spaces offered
either an in-person deposition in La Mirada, or a remote deposition.
The Court grants the motion as to the PMK. The deposition
will occur either remotely or in La Mirada, at the choice of Plaintiff’s
counsel. The parties will bear their own costs. The Court does not award
sanctions because it finds that Living Spaces acted with substantial
justification.
Mabry’s original deposition fell through due to a dispute
between the parties about whether it should occur in person. Plaintiff
requested close to the deposition date that the deposition occur in-person;
Defendants disagreed.
In meet and confer, Defense counsel has offered to produce
Mabry for deposition in person at the office of Plaintiffs’ counsel on the
condition that all other attendees may attend remotely if they choose.
The Court grants the motion to compel as to Mabry. Mabry’s
deposition will occur in person at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. All attendees
other than Mabry may attend remotely if they so choose. The parties will bear
their own costs. The Court does not award sanctions because it finds that
Defendants acted with substantial justification and met and conferred in good
faith.
The parties have met and conferred on the issue of Grennon’s
deposition.
Grennon appeared for her remote deposition on October 29,
2024. Plaintiff’s counsel suspended the deposition because Defendants’ counsel
instructed Grennon not to answer questions pertaining to exhibits where Grennon
had not been shown the full exhibit. (Chang Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel had
not given Grennon a chance to review the entire document and only provided
portions electronically for the witness to view. (Chang Decl. ¶ 9.)
The subsequent meet and confer disputes regarded whether
Defendants would pay the costs for the continued deposition, whether Defendants
would agree to pay sanctions, and whether Defendants would agree to a discovery
referee.
Grennon’s deposition still needs to continue. However, the
witness should have had the ability to view the entire document at the
deposition.
The Court grants the motion as to Grennon. The parties will
bear their own costs. The Court does not award sanctions because it finds that
Defendants acted with substantial justification.
Lok has issued subpoenas to non-parties Henkel, Disney,
Think Thin, and Carportland. These entities are former employers of Plaintiff. Lok
issued the subpoenas without any scope limitations as to time. The subpoenas
thus seek at least ten years of Plaintiff’s employment records.
Plaintiff only disputes the issue of scope as to time. Plaintiff
argues that the temporal scope of the subpoenas unduly invades her privacy
interest. For his part, Defendant agrees
to narrow the scope of the subpoenas in certain ways.
Although work history information is not categorically
subject to privacy protections, “sensitive information ordinarily found in
personnel files, such as evaluation of the person's work (script coverages and
other critiques), income information, employment contracts and the like” can be
subject to privacy protections. (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 1412, 1433; see also Board of Trustees v. Superior Court
(1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528 [personnel, tenure, and promotion files relating
to initial employment, promotion, additional compensation, and termination
which were communicated in confidence were covered by the communicator’s
constitutional right to privacy] disapproved of on other grounds by Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.)
“Courts must […] place the burden on the party asserting a
privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective
invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the
opposing party identifies [….] Only obvious invasions of interests fundamental
to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Williams
v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)
Plaintiff has offered to agree to the subpoenas if Lok limited
them to “2016 to present” – allowing for roughly eight years of employment
records. Plaintiff’s cancer diagnosis occurred in 2016.
The Court considers this a reasonable compromise. This provides Defendant with approximately six
years of record from before Plaintiff started to work at Living Spaces. This balances the parties’ various interests,
including the right to privacy.