Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2021-00043115-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00043115-CU-OE-CTL ELAM VS JEROMES FURNITURE WAREHOUSE [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 01/10/2024

Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (set two) is GRANTED.

A. As an initial matter, the court finds that plaintiff made a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution given the history of the case, the nature of the current discovery dispute, and the approaching trial date. See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438. The evidence shows that plaintiff's counsel sent defense counsel a detailed meet and confer letter – along with a proposed protective order and a draft Belaire-West notice – and then participated in a phone call with defense counsel. (Bekam Decl., ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. C; Brown Decl., ¶ 8.) B. Turning to the merits, defendant states that it is 'willing to produce the putative class information at issue' (Oppo. at 2:9-10), but seeks to limit disclosure to 'attorneys' eyes only.' That request is denied.

If defendant believes that discovery should be made only on specified terms and conditions, it must seek a protective order to that effect. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060(a), (b)(4).

The court, however, recognizes that the document requests seek personal and private information. See County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 927

(home contact information); see also International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 330 (financial information). Accordingly, the parties are directed to (1) issue a mutually agreeable Belaire-West opt-out notice for all absent employees, and (2) execute a mutually agreeable protective order prohibiting disclosure of the documents and information outside the confines of this lawsuit. Thereafter, defendant must serve further verified responses to requests 10-13 with the identifying information of the absent employees redacted. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38 ('[I]f intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged.'); see also McGovern v. BHC Fremont Hospital, Inc.

(2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 181, 159 (approving use of protective orders and redaction of third party identifying information to 'minimize any intrusion into a patient's privacy rights with respect to confidential information').

The further verified responses must be served, and the documents must be produced, by June 21, 2024.

C. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of $1,660 (4 hours at $400 per hour plus the $60 filing fee). See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(h); see also Realty Advisors, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3075665  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ELAM VS JEROMES FURNITURE WAREHOUSE [E-FILE]  37-2021-00043115-CU-OE-CTL LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791 ('[A] trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.'). The sanctions must be paid by defendant Jerome's Furniture Warehouse to plaintiff Chadd Hunter Elam by June 21, 2024.

D. Defendant's request for judicial notice (ROA 107, 114) is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3075665  11