Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV01243, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 15, 2024

Case Name: Loomis Armored US, LLC v. Castillo

Case No.: 23STCV00413 

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (4x)

Moving Party: Defendant Rafael Castillo

Responding Party: Plaintiff Loomis Armored US, LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion as to Form Interrogatories is denied.

The Motion as to Special Interrogatories is granted in part.

The Motion as to RFAs is granted.

The Motion as to RFPs will be assigned to a discovery referee.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Loomis Armored US, LLC (“Loomis”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Rafael Castillo for (1) violation of Pen. Code § 496, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) conversion.  Plaintiff alleges that it has a cash delivery service and that its employee, Castillo, stole $36,000 while making a delivery.  

On June 13, 2024, the Court consolidated this matter with Rafael Castillo v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, et al., Case No. 23STCV04436. Therein, Castillo brings claims for discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent misconduct, wrongful discharge, and defamation against Loomis and also five of its employees, Jessie Hernandez, Nolan Tate, Ryan Shake, Urias Jimenez, and John Toliano.   Castillo alleges that he had been an excellent employee for years, but when Shake was hired, he orchestrated a scheme in which he hired two younger employees, had Castillo completely train them, and then fired Castillo through a false assertion that he stole $36,000.  Castillo alleges that the LAPD and District Attorney found no probable cause for an arrest and that he has not been charged for any crime.  

1. Form Interrogatories

Castillo now seeks to compel further responses to his form interrogatories, set one, from Loomis.  

Loomis indicates that supplemental responses have been served.  Therefore, the Motion is denied as moot.  If the responses are insufficient, Castillo should meet and confer.  The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

2. Special Interrogatories 

Castillo seeks to compel further responses to his special interrogatories (“SI”), set one, from Loomis.  

Loomis indicates that supplemental responses were served as to SI nos. 29, 36-38, 40-41, 44-47, 49-51, 54, 57-58, 60-61, 64-67, and 70.  Thus, the Motion is denied as moot with respect to these interrogatories.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 34, but Loomis need only indicate the surveillance at the general time and area of the alleged conversion. 

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 6 because the identity of other guards could lead to admissible evidence and the objections lack merit.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 7 for the same reasons stated above.  This interrogatory is merely broader than SI no. 6.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 8 because guard schedules could also be relevant and the objections lack merit.

The Motion is denied as to SI no. 9, which states: “Please IDENTIFY and describe in detail any and all investigations conducted on any employee of PLAINTIFF working out of the facility from January 1, 2022, to January 1, 2023.”  This is overbroad in light of privacy rights.

The Motion is denied as to SI nos. 10 and 11, which are also overbroad and overburdensome.  Castillo has already requested information about relevant schedules.  

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 12, which seeks relevant route schedules.

The Motion is denied as to SI no. 13, which seeks “how much currency was delivered to each of PLAINTIFF’s customers between January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023.”  This is also overbroad.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 14, but only for the locations that Castillo worked.  

The Motion is denied as to SI no. 15, which is overbroad and overburdensome.

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 16 because the identity of other employees with access to Castillo’s vehicle is plainly relevant and the objections lack merit.

The Motion is denied as to SI no. 18 because the identity “of  all individuals who communicated with NCR Payment Solutions, LLC [ ] between January 1, 2020, and July 31, 2022” is overbroad and Castillo’s separate statement on this issue is somewhat incoherent.  

The Motion is granted as to SI nos. 20 (identity of employees that had access to the $36,000); 21(how long such employees had been working for Loomis); 23 (how these employees were investigated); 24 (findings and conclusions); 35 (identification of cameras where the conversion took place); 42 (contact information of employees working on May 26, 2022); 59 (all applicable insurance policies); 62 (procedures for preventing theft); and 63 (actions taken to prevent theft).  These SIs seek relevant information, and Loomis’ objections lack merit.  

The Motion is denied as to SI nos. 25 (all currency delivery routes on May 26, 2022) and 26 (people that had access to delivery trucks that day).

The Motion is granted as to SI no. 72, but only as to the general time and location of the alleged conversion. 

The Motion is denied as to SI nos. 22 (background check for employees involved); 27 (every person that was to receive cash on May 26, 2022); 32 (every client from  May 1, 2022, to July 31, 2022); 39 (all entities related to Loomis); 43 (all contracts for cash deliveries); 48 (more employee information); 52 (yet more employee information); 53 (follow-up to 52); 55 (more employee information); 56 (all clients that had contact with Castillo for nearly three years); 68 (all transactions with Cardtronics for over 4 years); 69 (all employees that delivered or received currency for Cardtronics for more than four years); 71 (more Cardtronics matters); 73 (all delivery contracts for over four years); and 74 (follow-up to 73).  These SIs are overbroad, overburdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

In sum, the Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.  Further responses are to be provided within 30 days.  Given the mixed results, the Court declines to award sanctions.

3. Admissions

Castillo next seeks to compel further responses to his RFA nos. 3 and 11 from Loomis.  

RFA no. 3 states, “Admit that YOUR client has no evidence that DEFENDANT stole, defrauded, or converted any of THEIR U.S. currency.”  This will be deemed to refer to Loomis and any of its clients.  A further response is required.  

RFA no. 11 states, “Admit that the District Attorney found no probable cause to arrest DEFENDANT for fraud, conversion, or theft.”  This is deemed to mean that the DA did not find a basis to press charges.  A further response will be required.

It makes little sense that the parties could not come to an agreement for these RFAs.  

The Motion is granted.  Further responses are to be provided within 30 days.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

4. Documents

Castillo next seeks to compel further responses as to nearly 99 RFPs.

The parties are engaging in unreasonable discovery practices, and the Court does not have the resources to address such behavior.  The Court sets an OSC re: discovery referee.  This Motion only will be assigned to a discovery referee.   The Court will not review the referee’s ruling, and the fees will be apportioned equally. 

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.