Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00016813-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 Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00016813-CU-OE-CTL CASTANON VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Protective Order, 01/31/2024

Defendant Harcon Precision Metals, Inc.'s Motion for a Protective Order on Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order on Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set Two) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Preliminary Matters Generally, 'new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.' (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538.) As this was the case here, the Court has considered the reply declaration of Shelby M.

Harris. (ROA 82.) Discussion On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff electronically served Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 1-2 and Special Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 6. (ROA 60, at Exs. 5-6.) The parties met and conferred. (Id. at Exs. 7-8.) Defendant seeks a protective order excusing Defendant from responding to this discovery. (See ROA 59, MPA, at p. 8:16-18; ROA 81, Reply, at p. 6:6-9.) Trial courts have discretion to issue protective orders over interrogatories and requests for production upon a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090(a)-(b), 2031.060(a)-(b).) The trial court may issue a protective order providing that the discovery requests need not be answered, or that responses be made only on specified terms and conditions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.090(b)(1) and (4), 2031.060(b)(1) and (4).) Defendant's motions are denied to the extent Defendant seeks orders that the discovery at issue need not be answered. Additionally, to the extent Defendant contends the discovery at issue is irrelevant to Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the scope of discovery is broad. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Nevertheless, Defendant has shown good cause to narrow the scope of the discovery at issue in light of the Court's order granting Defendant's motion to stay this action with the exception of the Eighth Cause of Action for Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses. (See SDSC Case No.

37-2021-00022930-CU-OE-CTL, ROA 90 (July 15, 2022 Minute Order).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105414  30 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CASTANON VS HARCON PRECISION METALS INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00016813-CU-OE-CTL Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 1 and 2 As to RFPD No. 1, the Court limits this request to Plaintiff's personnel file, employment records, wage statements, timekeeping data, payroll data, and all documents concerning reimbursements for Plaintiff's business-related expenses, including, but not limited to, any requests for reimbursements by Plaintiff and any documents reflecting payment of reimbursements to Plaintiff.

As to RFPD No. 2, the Court limits this request to exemplars of all employee handbooks, manuals and/or guidelines regarding Defendant's policies and/or procedures for reimbursement of business-related expenses from May 4, 2021 to the present.

Special Interrogatory (Set Two) No. 6 During meet and confer, Plaintiff Castanon offered to limit the scope of the definition of 'AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES' as to Special Interrogatory No. 6 to Plaintiff Castanon's Eighth Cause of Action as follows: 'all former and current nonexempt employees who worked for Defendant during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD who were not reimbursed for business-related expenses on at least one occasion.' (ROA 60, Ex. 8, at p. 1.) The Court finds this proposed modification is reasonable and limits this interrogatory to all former and current nonexempt employees who worked for Defendant from May 4, 2021 to the present who were not reimbursed for business-related expenses on at least one occasion.

Timing and Sanctions Defendant's responses and documents in response to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) as required above are to be served within 20 days of notice of this ruling.

As to the Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Defendant is ordered to produce the contact information set forth above 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.

In light of this ruling and the Court's previous order continuing the motion for summary judgment/adjudication in the Chavez-Laguna action to July 26, 2024, the Court will hear from the parties whether to continue the May 24, 2024 hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment/adjudication in this action as well.

No sanctions have been requested and none are awarded.

Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motions for protective orders are granted in part and denied in part.

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

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105414  30