Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV07604, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07604    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 7, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery;

(2) Motions to Quash Subpoenas for Business Records

Moving Party: Plaintiff Shana Smith

Responding Party: Defendants LACMTA and Felipe Gutierrez Olea

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES ARE GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE SUBJECT DISCOVERY WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,010.00 AGAINST LACMTA AND $1,950.00 AGAINST OLEA.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO QUASH ARE GRANTED IN PART. THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE MOTIONS TO QUASH 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.

A. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

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.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set one, to Defendant LACMTA. The requests seek documents related to other complaints of sexual harassment, training for supervisors of LACMTA, Plaintiff’s complaint of sexual harassment, and Defendant Olea’s personnel file.

In opposition, Defendant asserts it has supplemented its production, making the motion largely moot. Defendant represents that the only remaining issue is whether Defendant must produce documents evidencing other claims of sexual harrassment by non-party employees against other non-party employees. Defendant argues that these requests are overly burdensome, overbroad, infringe on the privacy rights of third-party employees, and are protected by the official information privilege and deliberative process privilege. Defendant also contends the motion is untimely. In reply, Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s supplemental responses are not code compliant, failing to identify the documents responsive to each request.

Plaintiff alleges she was sexually harassed by her supervisor while working for Defendant. The above categories of documents are relevant to that claim. Defendant has failed to show how the official information privilege and deliberative process privilege applies to this employment action. If there are documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, Defendant must provide a privilege log. Further responses are necessary.

The motion is not untimely. Plaintiff served notice of this motion within 45 days of service of responses. Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(c). This Court generally requires an informal discovery conference (IDC) before a motion to compel further may be heard. Plaintiff filed this motion within 30 days of the IDC, as ordered by the Court.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is GRANTED. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,010.00.

B. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to FI No. 15.1 from Defendant Olea, which requests Defendant identify evidence supporting his affirmative defenses. Defendant has objected to the request on the ground that it is premature. This request seeks the most basic of information from Defendant Olea. This evidence is discoverable and not premature. Further response is necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to FI no. 15.1 from Defendant Olea is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,950.00.

C. Motions to Quash Subpoenas to UCLA Health System and Maria Mendoza, LMFT

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (CCP § 1987.1(a).)

Plaintiff moves to quash subpoenas for medical records served on UCLA Health System and Maria Mendoza, LMFT. Plaintiff asserts the requests are overbroad as to scope and time and infringe on her right to privacy. In opposition, Defendant asserts it has agreed to limit the time frame to the last seven years. In reply, Plaintiff requests that he Court quash the subpoenas entirely or limit them to the last five years. The Court finds five years to be an appropriate temporal scope.

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED in part. The subpoenas are limited to the last five years. The Court declines to award sanctions to either party.