Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV37296, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 8, 2024

Case Name: Flores v. Munoz, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV25906

Matter: Motion to Compel Further Deposition Responses and Produce 

Documents

Moving Party: Plaintiff Anna Flores

Responding Party: Defendant Luis Munoz

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

This is an employment action.  Plaintiff Anna Flores seeks to compel a further deposition response from Defendant Munoz; Plaintiff also seeks further responses/production of accompanying documents.

With respect to documents, the Motion is denied as to request nos. 28-29 because responsive documents were produced after the Motion was filed.

The Motion is also denied as to request no. 50, which seeks “All Defendant Luis Carlos Munoz’s phone records for the phone number (323) 833-8586 from March 1, 2022 through July 31. 2022.”  The Court finds this to be overbroad.

With respect to request no. 51, contracts should be produced, but any identifying HIPAA information should be redacted.

The Motion is granted as to all other document requests, which relate to time records and text messages from an appropriate time frame.  The objections are overruled, and Defendant’s procedural arguments lack merit.  (See, e.g., Carter v. Superior Ct. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 994, 997.)  Documents should be produced.

The last issue is the deposition question that Munoz would not answer.  The question was, “Sir, did your daughter -- any of your daughters have a Brazilian butt lift?”.  

Plaintiff “contends that the sexual harassment includes Defendant asking her if she would get a ‘boob job’ or surgery like his daughter, Karla Munoz. . . . Whether Karla Munoz had plastic surgery is directly relevant to the case. If true and known by Defendant, then it is consistent with Plaintiff’s allegation that she was sexually harassed in the manner described above. If it is not true, then Plaintiff’s claim regarding what was said to her is nonsensical and less likely to be true.”

“Taken as a whole, [the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.460] clearly contemplate that deponents not be prevented by counsel from answering a question unless it pertains to privileged matters or deposing counsel’s conduct has reached a state where suspension is warranted.  The fact that suspension is available only where an interrogation into improper matters reveals an underlying purpose to harass, annoy, etc., indicates that witnesses are expected to endure an occasional irrelevant question without disrupting the deposition process.”  (Stewart v. Colonial Wester Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015.)  Objections as to relevancy during a deposition are “unnecessary.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.460.)  

The Court cannot say that this one question is tantamount to harassment.  Further, the scope of discovery is broad, and information should be disclosed if it might later lead to relevant information.  Thus, the Court will require a further response.

The Court would have awarded Plaintiff sanctions; however, Plaintiff improperly filed this motion as a “motion to compel (not further discovery)” when in fact the Motion does seek further responses.  This is itself sanctionable conduct.  No sanctions will be awarded at this time. 

The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.  Further responses and documents should be provided within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.