TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant Green Check Verified’s Answer is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant GCV Ventures, LLC’s Answer is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Motion for Protective Order Concerning Timing of Deposition of Plaintiff Cynthia Galas is DENIED.

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant Green Check Verified’s Answer; Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant GCV Ventures, LLC’s Answer

“A party against whom an answer has been filed may object, by demurrer as provided in [Code of Civil Procedure] [s]ection 430.40, to the answer upon any one or more of the following grounds: [¶] (a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. [¶] (b) The answer is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. [¶] (c) Where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas (“Plaintiff”) demurs to the answers filed by Defendants Green Check Verified, Inc. and GCV Ventures, LLC. Plaintiff demurs to these defendants’ third through eighth and twelfth through sixteenth affirmative defenses on the ground that the affirmative defenses fail to plead facts sufficient to constitute a defense. Plaintiff demurs to these defendants’ first and thirteenth affirmative defenses on the ground that the defenses are pleaded in the forms of denial of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief rather than in the form of new matter constituting a defense.

The Court finds that each affirmative defense is sufficiently pled. As to the first affirmative defense, Defendants contend that Plaintiff was not an employee; this is new matter constituting a defense. As to the third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses, it is reasonable to assert a defense which may be proven through future facts learned through discovery, and the Court does not require a party to assert the entirety of their defense in an answer. As to the sixth affirmative defense, Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not adequately perform her job, which pleads facts sufficient to constitute a defense. As to the seventh affirmative defense, it is reasonable to assert a defense which may be proven through future facts learned through discovery. As to the eighth affirmative defense, Defendants are entitled to contend there is no employment relationship where discovery may so prove. As to the twelfth affirmative defense, it is reasonable to assert a defense which may be proven through future facts learned through discovery. As to the thirteenth affirmative defense, it is reasonable to assert a defense which may be proven through future facts learned through discovery. As to the fourteenth affirmative defense, Defendants may be entitled to seek attorney fees if Plaintiff’s claims were filed in bad faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant Green Check Verified’s Answer is OVERRULED, and Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant GCV Ventures, LLC’s Answer is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Motion for Protective Order Concerning Timing of Deposition of Plaintiff Cynthia Galas

“Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) “The court for good cause shown may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) The protective order may provide that a deposition not be taken at all, be taken at a different time or place, or other certain limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order regarding the timing of her deposition, i.e., Plaintiff seeks an order that she need not submit for deposition until Defendants PayQwick, Inc.; Green Check Verified, Inc.; and GCV Ventures, LLC have provided sufficient discovery responses. Notably, Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020, subdivision (a), states that “the methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or another method, shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party.” However, Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020, subdivision (b), allows the court to “establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice” where good cause is shown.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for issuing an order regulating the timing and sequence of discovery, i.e., requiring Defendants to provide discovery deemed sufficient to Plaintiff before she is required to submit for her deposition. There is no evidence before the Court that Defendants have refused to engage in conversations about discovery disputes, there is no basis to place a “hold” on a party’s deposition until that party is satisfied with the deposing party’s discovery responses, and Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Defendants have refused to respond to discovery in bad faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Motion for Protective Order Concerning Timing of Deposition of Plaintiff Cynthia Galas is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant Green Check Verified’s Answer is OVERRULED. Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Set Forth in Defendant GCV Ventures, LLC’s Answer is OVERRULED. Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’s Motion for Protective Order Concerning Timing of Deposition of Plaintiff Cynthia Galas is DENIED.

Counsel is advised that the Court’s resources are limited, and motions must be limited to those that are necessary to advance litigation. Motions that are deemed frivolous, i.e., totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party, or appear to have been filed solely to increase another party’s costs may result in the imposition of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (a).