Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV13372, Date: 2022-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13372    Hearing Date: December 30, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

I.          Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

            Plaintiffs seek an order compelling The Scotts Company LLC to serve further responses to the first set of requests for production.  The court rules as follows:

            No. 14:  This request seeks all annual reports from 1960 to 2001.  Plaintiffs state they needs the information to identify officers, directors and managing agents of Defendant.  Defendant objects the request is overbroad and burdensome, that only the parent of The Scotts Company (not a party in this case) files annual reports, the predecessor to the parent company become a public entity in 1992 and did not start filing annual reports until that time, and there is no central repository for annual reports. 

            The motion is denied.  If this request seeks annual reports from Defendant, Defendant showed that no such documents exist.  If this request seeks annual reports from the parent company, Plaintiffs have not shown the need to identify the officers, directors, and managing agents of Defendant outweighs the burden of a non-party finding and producing the documents, especially because the annual reports of the parent company are publicly available and because the identities of the officers and directors can be obtained via an interrogatory.  See below regarding interrogatories.

            No. 15:  This request seeks all meeting minutes from board meetings where asbestos contamination in vermiculite was discussed.  Defendant objects this request is overbroad and unlimited as to time, and that there is no central repository of such documents.

            The motion is denied.  This request is overbroad in not being limited to any time period, and Defendant has shown with evidence the burden of searching for all the minutes throughout time.

            Nos. 16, 17:  These requests seek corporate minutes and executive meeting minutes for any meeting where asbestos contamination in vermiculite was discussed.  Defendant objects this request is overbroad.

            The motion is denied.  These requests are extremely overbroad in not being limited to any time period nor to any particular type of meeting.  Searching for any meeting minutes for any meetings attended by executives throughout the entire company for its entire existence is overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

            No. 21:  This request seeks documents identifying current and former employees who developed an asbestos disease while working in a facility where products were made with vermiculite.  Defendant objects it is overbroad and implicates third party privacy rights.  Plaintiff argues that Williams v Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 allows the discovery of employee information and that Defendant can redact the names.

“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)  The party asserting privacy a right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”  (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)  “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss or privacy.  A court must then balance these competing considerations.”  (Ibid.)  Williams did not involve the disclosure of third parties’ health or medical information. 

Here, Defendant established a legally protected privacy interest.  (See, e.g., Civ. Code § 56.20, subd. (c) [prohibiting employer from disclosing medical information pertaining to its employees without patient first signing authorization or under court order]).  Plaintiff did not show an important countervailing interest, especially because the decedent was not Defendant’s employee.  The decedent used Defendant’s fertilizer products as a consumer and therefore is not similarly situated to employees who worked in plants where the fertilizer was made.  Further, studies about Defendant’s employees are publicly available.  And Plaintiff’s proposal to redact names would make the request, which asks for the identities of the employees, meaningless. 

The motion is denied.

No. 22:  This requests ask for “writings” related to current and former employees who developed an asbestos disease while working in a facility where products were made with vermiculite.  Defendant objects it is overbroad and implicates third party privacy rights. 

This request raises the same privacy issues as discussed above, and more.  As written, it would require the personnel files for those employees, which contain a lot of private information about pay, benefits, workplace discipline, complaints, etc. that have nothing to do with this case.  Also, because the request is so broadly worded, it would also require searching for and producing all documents and emails the employees drafted, sent or received at work, regardless of the subject matter of those documents.

The motion is denied.

The motion is DENIED.

II.        Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

            Plaintiffs seek an order compelling The Scotts Company LLC to serve further responses to special interrogatories.  The court rules as follows:

No. 9:  This interrogatory asks for the identify, including the names and contact information, of all current and former employees who developed an asbestos disease while working in a facility where products were made with vermiculite.  As discussed above Plaintiff did not show an important countervailing interest, especially because the decedent was not Defendant’s employee and studies about Defendant’s employees are publicly available.  

The motion is denied.

No. 10:  This interrogatory asks for the identity of Defendant’s officers, directors, and managing agents from 1970 to 2001.  Defendant objects this is overbroad and burdensome.  The reference to managing agent is vague and ambiguous.  Many employees can be managing agents as to the specific scope of their employment.  It would be impossible to identify all managing agents over the thirty years from 1970 to 2001.  Listing the identities of Defendant’s officers and directors over those years is much more limited.  Defendant did not show preparing such a list would be overly burdensome.

The motion is granted in part as to the identities of Defendant’s officers and directors and denied in part as to managing agents. 

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

III.       Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission

            Plaintiffs seek an order compelling The Scotts Company LLC to serve further responses to requests for admission.  The court rules as follows:

Nos. 50, 51, 52, 57:  These RFAs do not ask for any identifying information and are narrow.  Whether they are admissible at trial is not a matter for a discovery motion.  The motion is granted.

Nos. 53, 55, 56:  These RFAs are vague, overbroad, and duplicative of other RFAs.  The motion is denied.

No. 54:  This RFA is vague, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Employees could develop lung case for different reasons, including smoking.  The motion is denied.

No. 58:  This RFA is overbroad and vague.  The Lockey study itself is the best source of its conclusions.  The motion is denied.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The moving party is to give notice.