Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01693, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV01693 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Webb, v. Pepperdine
University, et al.
CASE NO.: 23SMCV01693
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Further Responses
HEARING DATE: 4/12/2024
Legal
Standard
In
the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is
broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if
the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010;
see Davies v. Superior Court
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if
it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for
trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation] Admissibility is not the test
and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead
to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor
of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539,
1546.)
A motion to compel further responses
to a demand for inspection or production of documents (RPD) may be brought
based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or
incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly
generalized objections. (CCP§ 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel
further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts
showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”
(CCP. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the
moving party to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the
information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the
case); and [¶] Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information
is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.)
[Citations.] [¶] The fact that there is no alternative source for the
information sought is an important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for
inspection. But it is not essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow,
California Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶
8:1495.6.)
A motion to compel further must be
noticed within 45 days of the
service of a response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any
specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party
have agreed in writing. Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right
to compel further response to the inspection demand. (See, e.g., CCP §
2031.310(c).)
Motions to compel further responses
must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (per CCP §
2016.040) demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal
resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP §§ 2030.300(b),
2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate
statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as
reasons why a further response is warranted. (CRC, rule 3.1345(a).) The
separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may
be incorporated by reference. (CRC rule 3.1345(c).)
If a timely motion to compel has
been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or
failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210,
220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories];
see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245,
255.)
Analysis
Plaintiff Breanna C. Webb moves to
compel Defendant Pepperdine University to produce further documents pursuant to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (RPD), Set One, nos. 1 and 4.
Plaintiff argues that, despite Defendant’s averment that all responsive
documents would be produced, Defendant did not provide all responsive
documents, including certain communications and the entirety of Plaintiff’s employee
file.
RPD no. 1
This RPD requests “Plaintiff’s
entire employee file, and contents thereof.”
Plaintiff contends that there are outstanding documents which she can
prove exist. Plaintiff cites an email from
Nicole Koski stating that Pepperdine Human Resources will be emailing Plaintiff
with a link in which she can electronically complete her onboarding paperwork. (Webb
Decl., Ex. F) Plaintiff notes that Pepperdine never produced documents with
Plaintiff’s electronic signature.
Plaintiff does not meet her burden
to show that Defendant has withheld the requested employee file or its
contents. First, the Court finds the term “employee file” somewhat ambiguous.
The RPDs did not specifically define this term. Thus, it is difficult to say
that the cited emails or plaintiff’s electronic signatures would be a part of
Plaintiff’s employee file or its contents. Second, Plaintiff has not
established that she, in fact, sent any electronic signatures (although that is
the implication). Therefore, even assuming that those signatures would be
included in an ‘employee file,’ the Court cannot say whether Defendant truly
failed to produce such ESI.
Plaintiff also believes that her
employee file should have included additional documents pertaining to pay,
insurance, job description, and job duties. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
some of the produced documents included an inaccurate job description for a job
that she “turned down” and did not have Plaintiff’s actual job
description/duties. Plaintiff also does not explain why she believes Defendant
has an alternative document within her employee file showing her “actual” job
description and duties. Mr. Perrin’s statement that “shredding” was a part of
Plaintiff’s job responsibilities would not tend to show that there are unserved
responsive documents. Apparently, Defendant produced a job description which
did include shredding. Without further evidence, the Court cannot conclude that
there are withheld documents showing a different job description.
Therefore, further production will
not be ordered as to this request.
RPD no. 4
This RPD requests “All
communications between Camila Bonavia and Pepperdine University Human
Resources, regarding the Plaintiff with time date stamps.” Plaintiff argues that more responsive
documents must exist because Ms. Bonavia was out of the office and working from
home for two weeks prior to Plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff reasons that
Bonavia would have to had communicate with HR via email or other written means.
Plaintiff asserts that Pepperdine has not produced any email or Gchat
conversation.
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that
Defendant is still withholding documents. Plaintiff’s evidence suggests that
certain responsive documents exist, specifically any “supporting documents” re:
termination that Ms. Bonavia sent to Mr. Stiemsma. (See Webb Decl., Ex. G-H.) This
shows that such documents were sent, and as such, should have been included
with any production. However, Plaintiff does not state whether or not these specific
“supporting documents” were part of Defendant’s initial production, though she
implies as much. Further, on March 26, 2024, Defendant produced additional
documents Bates-stamped PEPPERDINE_00165 -_00175, responsive to RPD no. 4.
(Emry Decl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff agrees that these are further documents
responsive to RPD no. 4. (Supp. Webb Decl., ¶ 16.) Thus, the Court is not
convinced that there are any further outstanding documents to produce. To the
extent that the initial production was inadequate, the issue appears moot.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Sanctions are generally mandatory. The
Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a further response, “unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make
the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (See, e.g., CCP, § 2030.300(d).) The
Court finds such circumstances here. Plaintiff filed this motion on March 12,
2024, following adequate meet and confer efforts on production as to the
subject RPDs. Following this, Defendant produced additional documents. (Emry
Decl., ¶ 13.) The motion was not entirely frivolous or without merit, as it
caused Defendant to produce additional responsive documents. Therefore, the
Court is not inclined to grant sanctions against Plaintiff for this motion.