Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV28297, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28297    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 12, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(8) Discovery Motions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Marcia Mohler

Responding Party: Defendants Emerge Capital Management, Inc. and Lisa Langley

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY MOTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (SEE BELOW).

DEFENDANTS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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, oppositions, and replies.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges claims for employment discrimination and failure to accommodate. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants on August 30, 2022.

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted Against Defendant Langley

Plaintiff moves to deem requests for admission, amended set one, admitted against Defendant Langley. In opposition, Langley represents that responses were served on March 11, 2024. Plaintiff says the responses remain deficient. As Langley has served responses, the motion is moot. The parties must meet and confer on these responses before the Court can address whether further responses are necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted against Langley is DENIED.

B. Motion to Compel Defendant Langley’s Second Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to General FIs from Langley. Langley represents that further responses were served on March 11, 2024 and that the only remaining requests at issue are FIs nos. 12.1 and 12.3. These FIs seek information about witnesses. Langley states she has provided the identities of witnesses. Plaintiff asserts Langley has failed to provide contact information for all witnesses as required by subsections (a)-(d). Langley must respond to these requests fully. Further response is necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FIs – General from Langley is GRANTED as to FIs nos. 12.1 and 12.3. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,903.00.

C. Motion to Compel Defendant Langley’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, from Langley. Langley represents that she will serve further responses to RPD Nos. 13-20, 23-29, 32-36 and that RPDs Nos. 1-8, 9-12, 21-22 and 37 remain at issue.

The RPDs that remain at issue seek documents relating to Emerge’s balance sheets & corporate minutes, Langley’s calendar, efforts to register other employees with the SEC, and payroll records of other employees. Langley argues these requests seek irrelevant information and infringe on Langley’s privacy.

Plaintiff says that these requests are relevant to determine whether Langley is the alter ego of Emerge and whether Langley favored male employees over female employees. The Court agrees that corporate minutes and balance sheets may lead to admissible evidence of alter ego, and that payroll information about other similarly- situated employees may show bias. Langley’s calendar and Langley’s efforts to register employees with the SEC are irrelevant.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, from Langley is GRANTED as to nos. 1-8 and 37. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,679.00.

D. Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted Against Defendant Emerge Capital

Plaintiff moves to deem requests for admission, amended set one, admitted against Defendant Emerge. In opposition, Emerge represents that responses were served on March 11, 2024. Plaintiff says that these responses remain deficient. As Emerge has served responses, the motion is moot. The parties must meet and confer on these responses before the Court can address whether further responses are necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted against Emerge is DENIED.

E. Motion to Compel Defendant Emerge Capital’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Employment FIs from Emerge. Emerge represents that further responses were served on March 11, 2024 and the only remaining requests at issue are Employment FIs nos. 215.1 and 215.2. These FIs seek information about witnesses. Emerge states that it has provided the identities of witnesses. Plaintiff asserts Emerge has failed to provide contact information for all witnesses as required by the subsections (a)-(d). Emerge must respond to these requests fully. Further response is necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FIs – Employment from Emerge is GRANTED as to Employment FIs nos. 215.1 and 215.2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,291.00.

F. Motion to Compel Defendant Emerge Capital’s Second Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to General FIs from Emerge. Emerge represents that further responses were served on March 11, 2024 and that the only remaining requests at issue are FIs nos. 12.1 and 12.3. These FIs seek information about witnesses. Emerge states it has provided the identities of witnesses. Plaintiff asserts Emerge has failed to provide contact information for all witnesses as required by the subsections (a)-(d). Emerge must respond to these requests fully. Further response is necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FIs – General from Emerge is GRANTED as to FIs nos. 12.1 and 12.3. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,291.00.

G. Motion to Compel Defendant Emerge Capital’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, from Emerge. Emerge represents that it will serve further responses to nos. 2-21, 23, 35, 27-51-53, 57-60, 62-67, 71-78 and that only nos. 22, 24, 26, and 68 remain at issue.

The RPDs that remain at issue seek documents relating work-related injuries of other employees, applicants for Plaintiff’s position, and requests for accommodation by other employees. Plaintiff asserts that these requests are relevant to determine if other employees experienced work-related injuries and how they were treated. Plaintiff says information about other applicants for her position is “significant to Plaintiff’s evaluation of whether Emerge had applicants less qualified than Plaintiff and so Emerge had to hire Plaintiff.”

The Court agrees that other employees’ work-related injuries and accommodations may lead to evidence of disparate treatment or a pattern and practice of failure to accommodate disabilities. The Court does not see the relevance of the credentials of other applicants for Plaintiff’s position.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, from Emerge is GRANTED as to RPDs nos. 22 and 68. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,873.00.

H. Motion to Compel Defendant Emerge Capital’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set two, from Emerge. Emerge represents that Plaintiff did not meet and confer on these requests before filing the motion. Emerge states that it will serve further response to the RPDs and that only RPDs nos. 1-12, 19-20, 32 remain at issue.

The RPDs that remain at issue seek documents relating to Emerge’s balance sheets & corporate minutes, salespeople’s calendars, efforts to register other employees with the SEC and payroll records of other employees. Emerge argues these requests seek irrelevant information and infringe on employees’ privacy.

Plaintiff asserts these requests are relevant to determine whether Langley is the alter ego of Emerge and whether Langley favored male employees over female employees. The Court agrees that corporate minutes and balance sheets may lead to admissible evidence of alter ego and that payroll information about other similarly-situated employees may show bias. Salespeoples’ calendars and Langley’s efforts to register employees with the SEC are irrelevant.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set two, from Emerge is GRANTED as to RPDs nos. 1-8 and 32. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,097.00.