Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV30913, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30913    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Doomarina Sardarbekians (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant PLG Staffing LLC (“PLG”) to serve further responses to her First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 4-9, 11-16, 19-29, 30, 31-35, 37, 40-45, 47-52, 53, 54-74, 76-80, and 82-84.

The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s motion to December 24, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. so that the parties can meet and confer to attempt to take some or all of the issues out of contention.  The Court orders the parties to meet and confer telephonically for no less than an hour-and-a-half, or until the full resolution of all issues in all pending discovery motions, whichever is sooner.

Background

This is an employment case between Plaintiff and Defendants Wahib Mashini (“Mashini”); Desmond Adams (“Adams”); PLG; Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc. (“Clarity Debt”); J.W. FS LLC (“J.W.”); and Clarity Capital Solutions LLC (“Clarity Capital”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff filed this action on December 13, 2023. The operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which raises claims for (1) assault and battery; (2) sex and/or gender discrimination; (3) sexual harassment; (4) disability discrimination; (5) failure to accommodate; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process; (7) retaliation for opposing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (8) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (9) violation of the Bane Act; (10) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (11) invasion of privacy; (12) whistleblower retaliation; (13) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy; and (14) declaratory relief.

On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff served PLG with Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

On September 9, following a stipulated extension, PLG served responses to the discovery at issue.

Plaintiff filed this motion on October 24, 2024.

On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing Date indicating that the hearing date had been advanced from December 24, 2024, when it was originally set, to November 19, 2024.

On November 5, 2024, CLG filed an opposition. Plaintiff has not 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. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“ ‘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.)

Discussion

Meet and Confer

Due to unique circumstances, it appears that the parties were unable to meet and confer through no fault of their own.

            Plaintiff received the discovery responses at issue on September 9, 2024. (Jain Decl. ¶ 6.)

            Defendants’ counsel was on paternity leave from September 16, 2024 through November 4, 2024. (Soliman Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendants’ counsel activated an out-of-office notification indicating that he would be on paternity leave until November 4, 2024. (Soliman Decl. ¶ 3.)

On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and requested a response by September 30, 2024. (Jain Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel filed this motion on October 24, 2024.

Because Defendants’ counsel was on paternity leave, the parties were never able to effectively meet and confer. (Solimon Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s filing of the motion was substantially justified because Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel would have lapsed before defense counsel returned to the office. The deadline for a motion to compel further responses for requests for production is 45 days after the service of the initial responses (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c)), with an additional 5 days added if the responses are mailed from within California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).) Thus, Plaintiff’s initial motion deadline was October 29, 2024 at the latest, and the parties do not appear to have agreed to extend it. Plaintiff could not have waited for Defendants’ counsel to return to the office without risking that her motion deadline would lapse. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s filing of the motion without waiting for a response email was substantially justified.

However, Defendants’ counsel appears to suggest that they are willing to attempt a cooperative resolution of the issues in this motion. The Court therefore continues Plaintiff’s motion so that the parties can meet and confer to attempt to take some or all of the issues out of contention.