Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV09365, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09365    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 22, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Defendant Mango Technologies, Inc. dba ClickUp

Responding Party: Plaintiff Taylor Leonard

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

            Defendant moves for an order (1) compelling further supplemental responses to its Request Nos. 35-48; (2) compelling Plaintiff to provide her cell phone(s) for forensic review; and (3) imposing monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with her discovery obligations. Plaintiff alleges Defendants terminated her employment because she refused the advances of Defendant Brummette and reported his alleged inappropriate behavior.

            RPDs nos. 35-48 request that Plaintiff produce communications between her and other ClickUp employees (including her sister), social media posts, documents related to ClickUp, and relevant communications between Plaintiff and her father. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has refused to produce all responsive documents, most notably her text messages with her sister, a current ClickUp employee. Plaintiff produced some texts between herself and her sister from several months after Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff asserts that any other texts were “deleted,” and she no longer has access to them. Plaintiff also stated that her journals from the relevant time no longer exist.

            As relevant evidence in Plaintiff’s possession have been deleted, the Court finds good cause for inspection of her cell phone for text messages between Plaintiff and her sister. The inspection must be strictly limited to these text messages. Defendants are ordered to keep confidential any information not directly relevant to this lawsuit found on Plaintiff’s phone. For the remaining requests, Plaintiff is ordered to produce all responsive documents in Plaintiff’s possession and control. Plaintiff must provide code compliant responses stating all documents have been produced or the documents are not in Plaintiff’s possession or do not exist.

            Defendant’s motion to compel further is GRANTED.

            Defendant seeks $77,428.20 in sanctions for bringing this motion. This request is patently excessive, and the Court will not independently reduce fees. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.