Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 23SMCV04364, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 23SMCV04364, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Defendants PayQwick, Inc. and Green Check Verified, Inc.’s Motion to File Under Seal [Re: Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’ Motion to Compel Further Production and Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant Green Check Verified, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $43,245]; Defendants PayQwick, Inc. and Green Check Verified, Inc.’s Motion to File Under Seal [Re: Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’ Motion to Compel Further Production and Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant PayQwick, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $43,245]

The trial court “may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 974, 988, paragraph breaks omitted.)

Defendants PayQwick, Inc. and Green Check Verified, Inc. (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order allowing them to seal specific exhibits to Plaintiff Cynthia Galas (“Plaintiff”)’s motions to compel further responses to her Request for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendants. Defendants argue that the documents have been designated as confidential and are subject to a stipulated protective order to keep these documents confidential, and the documents contain Defendants’ nonpublic, confidential, and commercially sensitive information related to their business operations, including employee and other third party information, as well as information related to Defendants’ internal company policies and procedures, and Defendants’ employees’ and third parties’ privacy interests are implicated.

While a stipulation between the parties to keep the documents confidential does not itself provide a basis for the Court to seal portions of the motion, as there is a right of public access to court records, the Court finds it proper to seal the identified exhibits, as Defendants have an interest in keeping this information private which overrides any public interest in the documents, and Defendants have narrowly tailored the sealing request to only the specific identified documents. Accordingly, Defendants PayQwick, Inc. and Green Check Verified, Inc.’s Motions to File Under Seal are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’ Motion to Compel Further Production and Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant Green Check Verified, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $43,245; Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’ Motion to Compel Further Production and Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant PayQwick, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $43,245; Defendant Green Check Verified, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Slack Data; Defendant PayQwick, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Slack Data

Plaintiff moves for the Court for responses to her Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, served to Defendants on September 27, 2023, which seeks communications from, to, referencing, and related to Plaintiff, her termination, her job performance, and other relevant topics which are contained within Slack, an online messaging platform used by Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiff, during her tenure at PayQwick, Inc. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have improperly produced these communications “on a rolling basis,” which has hampered Plaintiff’s ability to litigate her case. Defendants have each filed motions for protective order relating to these demands on the grounds that the Slack messages contain Defendants’ confidential, internal business operation, nonparty customer financial, and other commercially sensitive information concerning current and former employees that bear no relationship to Plaintiff, her employment, or her claims in this action, and producing all requested documents would impose an undue burden on Defendants because of practical limitations imposed to Defendants’ Slack subscription and certain issues inherent in the platform.

On receipt of responses to requests for production of documents, the demanding party may move for further responses if the responding party’s “statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)); see also Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190 [motion to compel proper to challenge “boilerplate” responses].)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) This timeliness requirement is mandatory, and in some sense may even be considered a matter of jurisdiction, and the Court therefore “[has] no power to make an order compelling further answers where the propounding party failed to serve this motion within the statutory time.” (Prof’l Career Colls., Magna Inst., Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493; see also Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681 [same].)

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A meet and confer declaration must “state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) requires that any motion to compel further responses to discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090, subdivision (b), and section 2031.060, subdivision (b), provide that “[t]he 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.” As to interrogatories, a protective order may include direction “[t]hat, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted,” such that the interrogatories need not be answered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090, subd. (b)(1),(2).) As to requests for production of documents, a protective order may include direction “[t]hat all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (b)(1).) As to requests for admissions, a protective order may include direction “[t]hat the set of admission requests, or particularly requests in the set, need not be answered at all.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subd. (b)(1).)

In her Requests for Production, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between CYNTHIA GALAS and any employee, agent, principal, or contractor of PAYQWICK, INC.” and “GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC.”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between any employee, agent, principal, or contractor of PAYQWICK, INC.” and “GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC.” “and Jonathan Lee”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS sent to or from CYNTHIA GALAS during her employment by PAYQWICK, INC.”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS sent to or from any employee and/or agent of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), including but not limited to e-mails, text messages, and applications for approval from the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of any merger and/or acquisition”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between Robert Craig and CYNTHIA GALAS”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between Kevin Greenberg and CYNTHIA GALAS”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS referring or relating to announcements and/or representations, by any employee, agent, principal, or contractor of PAYQWICK, INC. to employees and/or agents of PAYQWICK, INC., that PAYQWICK, INC. would merge with and/or be acquired by GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC.”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS referencing a merger between PAYQWICK, INC. and GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC. and/or an acquisition of PAYQWICK, INC. by GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC.”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS referencing CYNTHIA GALAS”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between Robert Craig and Kevin Hart which were sent and/or transmitted between September 1, 2022 and April 21, 2023”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between Robert Craig and Kevin Greenberg which were sent and/or transmitted between September 1, 2022 and April 21, 2023”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS between Kevin Greenberg and Kevin Hart which were sent and/or transmitted between September 1, 2022 and April 21, 2023”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS referring or relating to any application to any regulatory agency in the United States for approval of a merger between PAYQWICK, INC. and GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC. and/or an acquisition of PAYQWICK, INC. by GREEN CHECK VERIFIED, INC.”; “[a]ll COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the termination of any employment relationship between CYNTHIA GALAS and PAYQWICK, INC.”; and “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any message, representation, and/or notification to the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation that the employment relationship between CYNTHIA GALAS and PAYQWICK, INC. has ended.”

The Court has reviewed the four motions and requests for production and finds that Plaintiff’s requests are overboard and burdensome, as she seeks information and communication from before she was hired, relating to third party information, and without limitation to scope so the requested documents would only relate to Plaintiff’s claims that she was terminated because of her insistence that PayQwick report to the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation certain material changes to its personnel that would take place upon Green Check Verified, Inc.’s acquisition of PayQwick and her allegations that management sought to rush the acquisition as a means of addressing ongoing cash flow difficulties within the company. Defendants represent that they have petitioned Slack to provide a complete export of all of Defendants’ data, which is certain to be an overwhelming number of documents, and Defendants have simply sought sufficient opportunity to process, review, and produce the relevant data. Plaintiff has refused to limit the timeframe of information she seeks and has not explained why she would be entitled to communication occurring before her hire without limitation as to those communications relevant to her claims. The Court is cognizant of all parties’ interests here, i.e., Defendants’ interests in protecting their confidential information, particularly that information not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff’s interest in receiving all information that would allow her to fully prove her claims, which may be burdensome to Defendants but is also necessary and legally warranted. For that reason, Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’ Motion to Compel Further Production and Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant Green Check Verified, Inc. is DENIED, Plaintiff Cynthia Galas’ Motion to Compel Further Production and Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, from Defendant Green Check Verified, Inc. is DENIED, Defendant Green Check Verified, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Slack Data is DENIED, Defendant PayQwick, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Slack Data is DENIED, and all parties’ Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.