Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00012828-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00012828-CU-OE-CTL FIGUEROA VS FLETCHER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Nathan Fletcher's motion to compel further responses to requests for production and for production of documents is GRANTED.

Defendant moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Grecia Figueroa to his first set of requests for production, which encompass only four document requests, as follows: No. 1: All COMMUNICATIONS with DEFENDANT Nathan Fletcher, including, but not limited to, all text messages, Instagram direct messages ('DM's'), Facebook messages, Twitter direct messages, e-mails, WhatsApp messages, or any other written form of COMMUNICATION (whether electronic, digital, or physical).

No. 2: All photos depicting both YOU and DEFENDANT Nathan Fletcher.

No. 3: All videos depicting both YOU and DEFENDANT Nathan Fletcher.

No. 4: All voice recordings between YOU and DEFENDANT Nathan Fletcher.

In response to these requests, Plaintiff objected that the requests were 'premature,' that each 'interrogatory' sought information equally available to Defendant, and that each was overbroad in both time and scope. Despite raising these objections, Plaintiff responded that she 'will produce responsive, non-privileged documents/things presently in its possession, custody, or control to the extent such documents/things are relevant to this action.' However, Plaintiff did not produce documents coincident with serving her responses and has yet to produce any documents responsive to these requests.

First, Plaintiff's objections to the requests are without merit. The requests seek relevant and discoverable documents; indeed, such documents are repeatedly referenced throughout Plaintiff's complaint and go to the very core of her claims against Defendant, and Defendant's potential defenses to those claims.

The requests were not premature; Defendant was within his rights to propound document requests to Plaintiff (and even, had he chose, interrogatories) as soon as he appeared in the case. Finally, even if it were true that all documents sought were 'equally available' to Defendant, the claim is only mildly relevant to an object based on undue burden, which Plaintiff has neither made nor proven. An objection based on Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 has no application to document requests, and there is no comparable objection available in the code section for document requests.

Second, the court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's counsel's representations that it met and conferred in good faith with respect to the dispute over a protective order. Most glaringly, the responses to the requests make no mention of a protective order. Similarly, Plaintiff did not even initiate the discussion regarding a protective order (it was triggered by counsel for Defendant San Diego Metropolitan Transit Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007464  3 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FIGUEROA VS FLETCHER [IMAGED]  37-2023-00012828-CU-OE-CTL System), and it was not raised until after Defendant filed its motion to compel. In any case, Plaintiff has not shown that such documents even require a protective order, given the very public nature of the references (including screenshots) to such documents in her complaint.

Under the circumstances here, sanctions are warranted. Defendant requests $10,720.00 in sanctions based on 22 hours of work by three attorneys with rates ranging from $725/hour to $415/hour. Neither the rates nor hours expended are reasonable for a motion of this nature involving only four document requests. The court believes rates of $600/hour for attorney Moore, $500/hour for attorney Reynolds, and $300/hour for attorney McKaveny are reasonable. The court will apply such rates to one hour of work each for attorneys Moore and Reynolds, and 10 hours for attorney McKaveny. The total using these figures is $4,100. The sanction will be against both Plaintiff and her counsel of record.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to compel is granted.

Plaintiff is compelled to provide verified code-compliant further responses to requests nos. 1-4, to produce documents responsive to these requests, and to pay sanctions of $4,100.00 no later than December 1, 2023.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007464  3