Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV01187, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV01187 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. BP RE MANAGEMENT LLC; ZHIMIN LI, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 50, 16 inclusive, Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES Date: February 27, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: P |
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is an employment
dispute. Plaintiff Diana Cuamea (Cuamea) alleges that she was employed by
Defendant BP Re Management LLC (BP) as a resident manager of 3425 Baldwin Park
Blvd, Baldwin Park CA. Defendant Zhimin Li (Li) is the managing owner of BP
(collectively Defendants.) Cuamea alleges she did not receive a minimum wage
for her work, and other contract and labor code violations. The second amended
complaint filed on October 23, 2023 contains seven causes of action: (1) Breach
of Statutory Obligation, (2) Breach of Statutory Obligation, (3) Breach of
Statutory Obligation, (4) Common Counts, (5) Misclassification as Independent
Contractor, (6) Unfair Business Practices and (7) Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA).
Plaintiff
filed the instant motion to compel further responses on December 4, 2023, as to
Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant
filed an opposition on January 17, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on January 19,
2024. The hearing on this motion was continued from January 30, 2024, to its
current date of February 27, 2024.
At
issue is the sufficiency of Defendants’ compliance with Special Interrogatories
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. For the reasons that
follow, the motion is GRANTED in part.
II. LEGAL
STANDARD
“Within 30 days
after the service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are
propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding
party[.]” (CCP § 2030.260(a).)
When a party propounding interrogatories deems responses to
the interrogatories to be incomplete or evasive, or deems objections to be
without merit, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further
response. Such motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration and
include a separate statement. In lieu of a separate statement, “the court may
allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and
each response in dispute.” (CCP § 2030.300(b)(2).) Such motion must also be
made within 45 days of verified responses or supplemental responses, or on or
before any specific later date the parties have agreed to in writing. (CCP §
2030.300(a)-(c).)
Code Civ. Proc. Section 2030.300 (d) provides for the
imposition of monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes such a motion unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of sanctions unjust. (CCP § 2030.300(d).)
III. ANALYSIS
A. Meet and Confer
Counsel
for Plaintiff, Kenneth F. Moss, declares that he sent a meet and confer letter
regarding the allegedly deficient responses on October 2, 2023. (Moss Decl. ¶ 5,
referencing Exh. E.) He sent a follow-up letter on October 21, 2023. (Moss
Decl. ¶ 5, referencing Exh. F.) On November 3, Counsel for Defendants responded
that Defendants would not be supplementing their responses. (Moss Decl. ¶ 5,
referencing Exh. G.) Moss sent a third letter outlining a response to each
objection but received no response. (Moss Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. H.) The parties did
not reach a resolution.
In
opposition, Defendants’ counsel, David M. Daftary, indicates that he has
substituted in for former counsel, to whom the meet and confer efforts were addressed.
(Daftary Decl. ¶¶ 4,5.) He does not allege that his representation began before
the motion was filed or otherwise challenge the sufficiency of meet and confer
efforts. (Daftary Decl. ¶¶ 6,7.)
Moss’s
declaration is sufficient for meet and confer purposes.
B. Discovery Requests at Issue
At
issue in this motion are Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Special Interrogatory 1:
Please IDENTIFY (for purposes
of these interrogatories, the term IDENTIFY shall be deemed to require the
person’s name and last known address and telephone number) each and every
person who worked as a resident manager, caretaker, janitor, housekeeper or
other responsible person living at any apartment complex or building owned by
you, either directly or through an entity you control or controlled, from June
5, 2022 through the date your responses to these Interrogatories are executed.
Special Interrogatory 2 :
Please IDENTIFY each and
every person who worked as a resident manager, caretaker, janitor, housekeeper
or other responsible person living at any apartment complex or building managed
or operated by you on behalf of another person or entity, from June 5, 2022
through the date your responses to these Interrogatories are executed.
Special Interrogatory 3:
Please DESCRIBE (for purposes
of these interrogatories, the term DESCRIBE shall be deemed to require the full
address of the property) any apartment complex or building owned by you, either
directly or through an entity you control or controlled, from June 5, 2022,
through the date your responses to these Interrogatories are executed.
Special Interrogatory 4:
Please DESCRIBE any apartment
complex or building managed or operated by you on behalf of another person or
entity, from June 5, 2022 through the date your responses to these
Interrogatories are executed.
C. Analysis
The September 11, 2023 production indicated that in response
to each Special Interrogatory, Defendants declined to respond based on relevancy,
privacy, ambiguity, overbreadth and legal conclusions. (Motion Separate
Statement p. 8: 22- p. 9: 10.)
Plaintiff urges that a further response is warranted, as
(1) the contact information sought is relevant to the litigation to contact
similarly situated PAGA employees, (2) the requests are not overbroad, and (3)
plaintiffs in PAGA actions are entitled to contact information. Cuamea makes
this motion as to all four special interrogatories but only argues as to
further response to Special Interrogatories 1 and 2. To the extent that Cuamea
is urging the Court to order a supplemental response to Special Interrogatories
3 and 4, she offers no argument in support beyond “Plaintiff must be permitted
to confirm the veracity of defendants’ responses relating to other employees at
other properties owned by the defendants by obtaining from defendants a listing
of all of the rental properties owned or managed by defendants.” (Motion
Separate Statement p. 11:16-18.) This is not a valid argument to compel further
response. Accordingly, the Court considers the arguments advanced by this
motion only and declines to compel a further response to Special Interrogatories
3 and 4.
Cuamea urges that the contact information sought by Special
Interrogatories 1 and 2 is relevant to her PAGA action. She cites Williams
v. Superior Court in support, for the proposition that contact information
of similarly situated aggrieved employees is discoverable in a PAGA action.
(See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542.) This
argument is well taken, as the right to discovery “includes an entitlement to
learn ‘the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter.’ (Id. at 541, citing CCP § 2017.010.)
Defendants
also declined to respond based on overbreadth and ambiguity. However, Defendants did not set forth specific grounds
for these objections in violation of CCP Section 2030.240(b). (CCP §
2030.240(b).) As the standard for overbreadth is to be so ambiguous as to be
incomprehensible, the Court declines to find Special Interrogatories 1 and 2
meet this standard. (Motion p. 10: 13-25.) Additionally, in their opposition, it appears
that Defendants are no longer pursuing these objections, as there is no
argument advanced in support of overbreadth and ambiguity.
Plaintiff
urges that the contact information sought, even though arguably private, is nevertheless
discoverable. (Motion p. 12: 1-3, Motion Separate Statement p. 7: 24-28.)
Citing Williams, supra, Plaintiff urges that contact information of
other employees is routinely deemed discoverable in PAGA actions. (Williams,
supra at 538.) Further, Williams provides that a “Belaire-West” opt out
notice is not required in a PAGA action and even may produce unintended
consequences. (Id. at 558-559.) In addition, Cuamea cites case law that
contact information is not the sort of information to require a privacy
interest balancing. (See Puerto v. The Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.
App. 4th 1242; Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal. App.
4th 958.)
In
opposition, Defendants argue that they only withheld employee contact
information pursuant to Special Interrogatory 1. (Opposition p. 2: 4-12.) They
further urge that the contact information withheld is with respect to one
employee only. To the extent that Defendants urge that their response to
Special Interrogatory 2 is full and complete, the Court declines to conclude this. Special Interrogatory 2 seeks the names of
the same people whose contact information is sought in Special Interrogatory 1. Accordingly, the same person(s) should be
identified in response to Special Interrogatory 2 and 1.
Defendants
urge that the Court should order a Belaire-West opt out notice before the
requested contact information is provided. (Opposition p. 4- p. 6: 2.) Citing Williams,
supra, Defendants urge that the Williams Court “lamented the fact that the
trial court did not require Belair-West opt-out notices on a broader
scale.” (Opposition p. 4: 13-14.) However, the Williams court only noted
that the privacy interests of the fellow employees “could have been
addressed by conditioning discovery on a Belair-West notice” (Williams,
supra, at 559, emphasis added.) Defendants then urge that the Court should
impose a Belaire-West opt out notice requirement in this case.
(Opposition p. 5: 11-13.)
The
Court declines to extend the holding of Williams in this case. (See
Reply p. 5: 23-25, p. 4: 3-23.) The
Court is persuaded that a Belair-West notice is not warranted or appropriate
under these particular facts.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel as to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2.
D.
Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.310, subdivision (h) and 2030.300 subdivision (d), requires the imposition of sanctions
against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel a further response unless the court finds the imposition of a
sanction to be unjust or that the one subject to the sanction acted with
substantial justification.
Both parties seek
monetary sanctions. The Court finds that
both parties acted with substantial justification. Therefore, the Court declines to award
sanctions to either party.
IV. CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cuamea’s
motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED
as to Special Interrogatories 1 and 2. It is denied with respect to Special
Interrogatories 3 and 4. All requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Defendants are ordered to provide
further, verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories No. 1,
2 within 15 days.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT