Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV07170, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07170    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Sheila Sansano

Responding Party: Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

DEFENDANT TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF 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.

BACKGROUND

            On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff Sheila Sansano sued Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) whistleblower retaliation; (7) breach of oral contract; and (8) breach of implied-in-fact contract.

The Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the seventh and eighth causes of action with leave to amend. On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for 1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) whistleblower retaliation; and (7) breach of implied-in-fact contract.

Plaintiff, a Filipino woman, alleges Defendant terminated her employment as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services on the basis of her race, national origin and gender, and for reporting instances of discrimination and harassment.

ANALYSIS

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.)

A. RPDs Nos. 4 and 7

RPDs nos. 4 and 7 request all documents related to Plaintiff’s termination and all documents on which Defendant relied in making the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant objected to these requests on the grounds that they are overbroad and seek privileged information.

Documents related to Plaintiff’s termination are relevant and discoverable. To the extent any documents are privileged, Defendant must serve a privilege log. Further response is necessary.

B. RPD No. 11

            RPD no. 11 seeks all drafts of Defendant’s termination memorandum in native form. Defendant objected to this request on the grounds that it seeks privileged and/or attorney work-product information. Defendant has agreed to provide all non-privileged drafts of the letter in PDF format. The Court finds this sufficient. Counsel’s edits to the letter are privileged work-product. Further response is not necessary.

C. RPDs Nos. 44-55

            RPDs Nos. 44-55 and 48-55 seek all complaints made against certain employees, decision makers of Plaintiff’s termination and people who allegedly harassed Plaintiff. Defendants objected to this request as overbroad and limited the response to complaints of discrimination and harassment found in the official complaint system. The Court finds this limitation reasonable. The Court finds reasonable a temporal scope of 5 years prior to Plaintiff’s termination to the date of the request.

D. RPD No. 32

            RPD no. 32 requests that Defendant provide the job descriptions for all employees who provided information relied upon for the termination decision. Defendant objected on relevance. Plaintiff asserts that further response is necessary because the job descriptions will show whether any of the employees are managing agents for the purpose of punitive damages. The Court agrees. Defendant must provide job descriptions.

E. RPDs Nos. 41 and 43

            RPDs Nos. 41 and 43 request all training materials on discrimination, harassment and workplace investigations given to employees involved in Plaintiff’s termination over the last 5 years. Defendant objected to the requests as overbroad and irrelevant. Defendant asserts that the training materials of employees who were not decisionmakers in Plaintiff’s employment are irrelevant. The policies and procedures about discrimination and harassment given to Defendant’s employees are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Further response is necessary.

            Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part. The parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.