Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV42875, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV42875 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: 55
INCALZA
v. PORSCHE DESIGN STUDIO NORTH AMERICA 20STCV42875
Hearing Date: 12/6/22,
Dept. 55
#5: MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT PORSCHE DESIGN OF
AMERICA, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL
(C.C.P. §2030.300); REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,200.00
AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Plaintiff
RP:
Defendant PORSCHE
Summary
On 11/9/20, Plaintiff GIANCARLO INCALZA filed a Complaint.
On 3/22/21, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging that defendants wrongfully terminated his employment,
based on age discrimination, and fraudulently induced Plaintiff to sign
a severance agreement, release, and illegal noncompetition agreement
prohibiting work for Porsche, which he did not fully understand due to limited
fluency in English, because of high-level management’s repeatedly stating that
the agreement was drafted to mean that Plaintiff could apply for other jobs at
Porsche, and then defendants actually processed such job applications.
The causes of action are:
(1) RESCISSION;
(2) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 16600;
(3) FRAUD/DECEIT;
(4) DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(5) FAILURE TO HIRE IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(6) HARASSMENT IN
VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(7) FAILURE TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION;
(8) FAILURE TO PRODUCE
PERSONNEL FILE IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE § 1198.5;
(9) INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(10) NEGLIGENT HIRING,
RETENTION, AND SUPERVISION;
(11) WRONGFUL TERMINATION
IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY;
(12) WHISTLE-BLOWER
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1102.5.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order compelling defendant
Porsche Design of America, Inc. to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories, within seven days, and imposing $4,200 in sanctions, on
grounds including the following:
·
Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks Porsche to
identify all facts, witnesses, and documents that support each of its
affirmative defenses.
·
Porsche supplemented its response, but
still failed to identify any facts or witnesses as to two of the affirmative
defenses.
·
Regarding its “Legitimate Business
Justification” defense, Porsche’s supplemental response to subsection (a)
states: “Legitimate business reasons existed for management’s decision to
eliminate the Regional Manager position in 2018 which Plaintiff held, for the
termination of Plaintiff’s employment in 2019 due to inability to meet
expectations as store manager, and for the decision not to hire Plaintiff
following termination.” (motion, ex. 4.)
·
Porsche’s supplemental response to
subsection (b) only states: “Plaintiff and Defendants,” but was asked to “state
the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge
of those facts [supporting the defense].”
·
Extensive meet and confer efforts were
unsuccessful.
RP
Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, and sanctions
against moving party and counsel, for reasons including the following:
·
Code-compliant
responses already were provided, as follows:
“6.
Legitimate Business Justification
(a)
Legitimate business reasons existed for management’s decision to eliminate the
Regional Manager position in 2018 which Plaintiff held, for the termination of
Plaintiff’s employment in 2019 due to inability to meet expectations as store
manager, and for the decision not to hire Plaintiff following termination.
(b)
Plaintiff. John Mansfield, Karsten Von Engeln, Kathy Martin, Gerhard Novak, who
may be reached through counsel of record.
(c)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, Defendant refers
Plaintiff to PDOA_78-82, 84-101, 103-108, 114-117, 160-163, 165-167, 170-174,
176-179, 183, 187-291, 307-308, 311, 318-327, 330-338.”
“10.
Not Hiring Entity
(a)
This defense was asserted by non-employer entities, Porsche Design Studio North
America
and Porsche Cars North America.
(b)
Plaintiff and Defendants.
(c)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230, Defendant refers
Plaintiff to PDOA_72.”
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is granted, as to the requests to compel.
Both sides’ sanctions requests are denied, the Court
finding substantial justification.
Defendant PORSCHE DESIGN OF AMERICA, INC. is to
provide further responses without objections within 30 days.
Although counsel cannot contact represented parties,
addresses and telephone numbers also can serve as witness-identification
information.
“Central to the discovery process is the
identification of potential witnesses. ‘The disclosure of the names and
addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of
pretrial discovery.’ ” Puerto v.
Superior Ct (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249–50.
“ ‘While representing a client, a member shall not
communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of the representation with
a party the member knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter,
unless the member has the consent of the other lawyer.’ “ San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. ex rel.
Contreras v. First Student, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 1230 (quoting Cal. Rules of Prof. C., Rule 2-100(a),
which is now Rule 4.2(a)).
For purposes of discovery motions, no level of supportive
information is required in responses as to contention interrogatories such as
Form Interrogatory 15.1.
Contention interrogatories involve the reflection of
attorneys in formulating a response in a sophisticated process of legal
reasoning, sorting through evidence and organizing it in terms of contentions a
party is asserting. Rifkind v. Sup.
Ct. (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1263.
However, any factually devoid or unsupportive responses to contention
interrogatories may shift the burden of proof for a motion for summary
judgment. Union Bank v. Sup. Ct.
(1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 573, 580.
Finally, sanctions are denied because, (1)
traditionally, excusing respondents from stating witnesses’ addresses and
telephone numbers, commonly have been excused where Rule of Professional
Conduct 4.2(a) would apply, (2) there is no citable and governing authority
directly on point about compelling those types of responses for identification
purposes, and (3) there is case law supporting the use of witness addresses
towards identifying witnesses where no communication with parties is involved.
Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to
parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification
or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley
Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been
understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is
well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe
v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.