Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00889, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00889, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00889 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: C

Patricia Garcia vs Us Motor Works, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22NWCV00889
Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

I. Plaintiff Patricia Garcia’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production is GRANTED in part.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part.

III. Sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

On or about September 26, 2022, Plaintiff Patricia Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed the underlying action alleging workplace discrimination and harassment against her employer, Defendant US Motor Works, LLC (“Defendant MotorWorks”).

On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant MotorWorks with Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One), as well as four other sets of discovery. (Ritivoiu Decl. for RFP, ¶ 2, Exhibit A; Ritivoiu Decl. for Special Interrogatories, ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff was served with Defendant MotorWorks’s verified responses. Defendant MotorWork agreed to extend the 45-day deadline to file the instant motion to compel to 9/22/2023. (Ritivoiu Decl. for RFP, ¶ 3, Exhibit C; Ritivoiu Decl. for Special Interrogatories, ¶ 3, Exhibit C.)

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter addressing defects in the responses. Thereafter, the parties communicated in writing about the issues raised in Plaintiff’s July 13 meet and confer letter.

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿

The Court finds that Plaintiff has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement.

Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed a separate statement.

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Discussion

I. Production of Documents

Request 45: All DOCUMENTS that support, refer to, relate to, the names, phone numbers and addresses of all of YOUR employees from August 2021 to November 2021, including forms EDD form DE 9C, payroll registers, lists of employees.

Plaintiff argues this demand is material and relevant to establish the facts and evidence of the hostile workplace condition in the course of Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant argues that the information requested is irrelevant and that wage information in particular raises privacy concerns. The Court determines that Plaintiff’s request is within the proper scope of discovery, except for wage information which shall be redacted from the response.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production is GRANTED in part.

II. Special Interrogatories

Special Interrogatory No. 3: IDENTIFY each PERSON who worked at the WORKPLACE during the same hours and dates which PLAINTIFF had worked for YOU for the past four years of PLAINTIFF’S employment with YOU. As to this set of interrogatories, the term IDENTIFY when in CAPITAL LETTERS and used in connection with PERSON(s) shall mean a request to provide the name and contact information including address, phone number, e-mail address, as well as their job title. The term PERSON shall mean any natural person, corporation, partnership, or other entity including any entity that has a separate identity, recognized by law or in fact to have legal rights and obligations. As to this set of interrogatories, the term WORKPLACE shall mean YOUR business location at 14722 ANSON AVE SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 and all locations identified in response to special interrogatory 2.

Plaintiff argues this demand is material and relevant to establish the facts and evidence of the hostile workplace condition in the course of Plaintiff’s employment.

In opposition, Defendant MotorWorks argues that the discovery requested imposes a “massive imposition” upon it and infringes on the privacy rights of its personnel. Moreover, it contends that little can be gleaned from witnesses who have never worked alongside Plaintiff or have little to no recollection of the time their employment with Plaintiff overlapped.

The Court determines that Plaintiff’s request for four years of employment information is overbroad. The request will be limited to the four-month period from August 2021 to November 2021.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED in part.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Given the overbreadth of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 3, the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion. No sanctions are imposed.