Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL CHAVEZ-LAGUNA VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 11/22/2023

Plaintiff Agustin Chavez-Laguna's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff's requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Discussion Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) SI No. 1 – GRANTED as Set Forth Below SI No. 1 asks Defendant to identify each covered employee who was employed by Defendant during the relevant time period by setting forth their full names, employment positions, last known home address, last known email, and last known home and cellular phone numbers. ('Relevant time period' is defined as May 24, 2020 to the present.) Preliminarily, Defendant objected to this request (and all the other requests at issue) on the grounds Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the remaining claims and thus cannot continue this action. Defendant contends the determination of whether Plaintiff has standing is best addressed through Defendant's motion for summary judgment/adjudication set for July 26, 2024, and Plaintiff cannot litigate his standing through discovery concerning other employees.

The fact Defendant has a pending motion for summary judgment/adjudication on the issue of standing does not necessarily limit discovery in the PAGA context, particularly with regards to the contact information sought by Plaintiff. The contact information for allegedly aggrieved employees is 'within the proper scope of discovery, an essential first step to prosecution of any representative action.' (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 544 (Williams).) 'PAGA's standing provision similarly contains no evidence of a legislative intent to impose a heightened preliminary proof requirement.' (Id. at p. 546.) Thus, the plaintiff in a PAGA action is not required to first establish standing to obtain this initial discovery, as 'to show the merits of one's case has never been a threshold requirement for discovery in individual or class action cases; it is not a threshold requirement here.' (Id. at p. 558.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054864  33 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHAVEZ-LAGUNA VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL Defendant cites Williams for the proposition that 'the filing of a summary judgment motion is the correct vehicle to address this very issue; a discovery motion to compel is not.' (ROA 163, Joint Oppo., p. 3:22-25, emphasis original.) However, the cited language in Williams stands for the proposition the proper way to challenge standing is bring a dispositive motion, 'not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.' (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 558-559, emphasis added.) Williams recognized 'that in a particular case there may be special reason to limit or postpone a representative plaintiff's access to contact information for those he or she seeks to represent.' (Id. at p. 544.) Defendant has not shown these circumstances apply.

Defendant's other objections to SI No. 1 lack merit. Additionally, Defendant's response to SI No. 1 is insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.220-2030.240. It is unclear from Defendant's response whether the information requested is 'unknown' to Defendant or based on information that lacks personal knowledge sufficient to answer the interrogatory, whether Defendant is objecting to the interrogatory in whole or in part, or whether Defendant is exercising the option to specify writings under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted as to SI No. 1. Defendant must serve further responses and produce the contact information for all aggrieved employees who worked for Defendant from May 24, 2020 to the present, subject to a Belaire-West notice agreed to by the parties.

SI No. 2 – GRANTED SI No. 2 asks Defendant to state the total number of pay periods for all covered employees combined.

This interrogatory is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in support of five remaining causes of action. Defendant's response to SI No. 2 is also insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.220-2030.240. It is unclear from Defendant's response whether the information requested is 'unknown' to Defendant or based on information that lacks personal knowledge sufficient to answer the interrogatory, whether Defendant is objecting to the interrogatory in whole or in part, or whether Defendant is exercising the option to specify writings under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230. Plaintiff's motion is granted as to this interrogatory.

SI No. 3 – DENIED SI No. 3 asks Defendant to state the number of covered employees who were terminated, resigned, or otherwise had their employment end from May 24, 2020 to the present.

Defendant's relevance objections have merit. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Sixth and Seventh violations regarding timely payment of wages during employment and after termination. (ROA 82.) Plaintiff has not shown how this interrogatory is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to the five remaining claims. To the extent Plaintiff contends this interrogatory will identify aggrieved employees, it is duplicative of SI No. 1.

Plaintiff's motion is denied as to this interrogatory.

SI Nos. 4, 5, and 6 – GRANTED SI No. 4, 5, and 6 asks Defendant to state the total amount of rest break premiums, meal break premiums, and overtime wages, respectively, that were paid to covered employees in each year from May 24, 2020 to the present.

Defendant's objections these interrogatories are burdensome and require the production private and confidential third party information lack merit. Defendant's responses to SI Nos. 5 and 6 indicate the monetary amounts of meal period premiums and overtime wages paid out from October 2021 to December 2022 (although Defendant did not provide this information for the time period of May 24, 2020 to the present as requested). This demonstrates Defendant has responded and can respond to these Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054864  33 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHAVEZ-LAGUNA VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL interrogatories without divulging or producing any confidential information, and responding to these interrogatories is not unduly burdensome. Defendant's other objections lack merit. Additionally, Defendant's responses to SI Nos. 4, 5, and 6 are insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.220-2030.240 for similar reasons set forth as to Defendant's response to SI No. 2. Plaintiff's motion is granted as to these interrogatories.

SI Nos. 8, 9 and 11 – GRANTED SI No. 8 asks Defendant to identify all supervisors who supervised any of the covered employees at any point in time from May 24, 2020 to the present. Similarly, SI Nos. 9 and 11 ask Defendant to identify all natural persons who were responsible for Defendant's payroll and who determined any of the covered employees' work schedules from May 24, 2020 to the present.

The identity of these supervisors and percipient witnesses are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in support of five remaining causes of action. Additionally, Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.220-2030.240.

Defendant failed to provide the name and contact information of all responsive individuals but instead broadly referred to 'Plaintiffs other supervisors, and potentially other current and former employees.' When Defendant did name individuals in response to these interrogatories, Defendant did not provide their contact information and title. It is also unclear whether Defendant is objecting to the interrogatory in whole or in part, or whether Defendant is exercising the option to specify writings under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted as to these interrogatories.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) RFPD No. 2 – GRANTED RFPD No. 2 seeks all documents that state the job descriptions of covered employees during the relevant time period ('relevant time period' is defined as May 24, 2020 to the present).

This request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to the five remaining causes of action. Defendant's response to this request is insufficient, as Defendant limited this request to documents 'regarding Plaintiff' and did not indicate whether an inability to comply or whether all documents in possession, custody or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Plaintiff's motion is granted as to this request.

RFPD Nos. 6, 7, and 8 – DENIED without Prejudice RFPD Nos. 6, 7, and 8 seek the timekeeping data, payroll data, and itemized wage statements for all covered employees from May 24, 2020 to the present.

Defendant's objections based on privacy have merit. These requests seek documents beyond mere contact information and represent a more serious intrusion of the aggrieved employees' privacy. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 554 ['While less sensitive than one's medical history or financial data, 'home contact information is generally considered private''].) Although a protective order is in place, the seriousness of this intrusion is especially apparent given the contact information for the aggrieved employees has not been produced, and a Belaire-West notice with opt-out provisions has not yet been agreed upon and issued by the parties. At this time, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the production of these documents under these circumstances.

Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice as to these requests. Plaintiff may seek production of these records for timekeeping data, payroll data, and itemized wage statements for aggrieved employees through a renewed motion following completion of the Belaire-West notice process.

RFPD Nos. 4 and 5 – GRANTED Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054864  33 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHAVEZ-LAGUNA VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL RFPD No. 4 seeks exemplars of every version of any employee handbook, manuals and/or guidelines provided to covered employees from May 24, 2020 to the present. Similarly, RFP No. 5 seeks exemplars of all documents that newly hired covered employees were asked to sign when they began their employment during that time period.

Defendant's employee handbook, manuals, guidelines, and onboarding documents are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to the five remaining causes of action.

Defendant's responses to these requests are insufficient, as Defendant limited these requests to documents 'regarding Plaintiff' and did not indicate whether an inability to comply or whether all documents in possession, custody or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Plaintiff's motion is granted as to these requests.

RFPD Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, and 17 – GRANTED RFPD No. 11 seeks policies, practices, and procedures concerning the timekeeping of hours worked by covered employees from May 24, 2020 to the present, including but not limited to clock-in and clock-out policies, practice, and procedures. Similarly, RFP No. 12 seeks policies, practices, and procedures concerning the rounding of time records for time worked by covered employees during that time period.

Similarly, RFPD Nos. 13, 14 and 15 seek policies, practices and procedures from May 24, 2020 to the present for meal breaks, rest breaks of covered employees, and compensation for covered employees.

RFPD No. 17 seeks all documents concerning when and how covered employees were instructed to input their time entries into timekeeping system(s) from May 24, 2020 to the present.

Documents regarding Defendants' policies, practices and procedures set forth above are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to the five remaining causes of action.

Again, Defendant's responses to these requests are insufficient, as Defendant limited these requests to documents 'regarding Plaintiff' and did not indicate whether an inability to comply or whether all documents in possession, custody or control will be produced. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Plaintiff's motion is granted as to these requests.

RFPD No. 19 – DENIED RFPD No. 19 seeks all documents sufficient to identify the covered employees employed from May 24, 2020 to the present, and their dates of employment.

Plaintiff indicates 'he is agreeable to forego this RPD if Defendant provides the contact information of all Aggrieved Employees in response to Special Rog No. 1 (either through Belaire-West notice or under Stipulation and Protective Order).' (ROA 129, MPA, at p. 8:23-25.) In light of the Court's ruling as to SI No. 1, which provides for the means and notice procedure to obtain the contact information, Plaintiff's motion is denied as to this request.

Privilege Log To the extent Defendant has withheld documents on the basis of privilege, a privilege log must be provided to evaluate the merits of Defendant's objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c).) Timing As to SI No. 1, Defendant is ordered to serve further responses and produce the contact information for all aggrieved employees who worked for Defendant from May 24, 2020 to the present, subject to a Belaire-West notice. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on a proposed Belaire-West notice within 10 days of this ruling. The parties can seek assistance from the Court through an Independent Discovery Conference.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054864  33 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHAVEZ-LAGUNA VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL As to the remaining requests, further responses, documents, and a privilege log are to be served within 20 days of notice of this ruling.

Sanctions The court may deny sanctions where the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) Here, the delay in discovery and the production of documents is attributable, at least in part, to the parties' attempts to informally resolve the matter, and the parties engaged in meet and confer efforts that resolved most of the discovery disputes in litigation involving (now four) related actions. Given these circumstances and the mixed results of the motions, the requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion Based on the foregoing's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The minute order will be the final ruling of the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to serve written notice of ruling on all parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054864  33