Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 20STCV03194, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 20STCV03194 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: September
25, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant
County of Los Angeles
Responding Parties: Plaintiffs
Markeitha Harris and Vanessa Johnson
Motion for Protective Order and Request for Sanctions
The
Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The
Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.
The
Court DENIES both parties’ request for monetary sanctions.
Background
This is an employment dispute
involving FEHA, Labor Code, and other tort claims. Plaintiffs
Markeitha Harris, Doreen Beaupierre, and Vanessa Johnson filed this action on
January 23, 2020 and a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on December 18, 2020. The
court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC on February 17, 2022,
dismissing plaintiff Doreen Beaupierre,
without prejudice. Plaintiffs Markeitha Harris and Vanessa Johnson filed a
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on March 14, 2022 against defendants County of
Los Angeles (erroneously sued as the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services); Maria
Lieras; Barbara Ferrer, Ph.D., MPH; Gerardo Pinedo; Mary Orticke; Jennifer
Rivera; Dina Zaer; Evon Coburin; Mei Lien Chu; Michael Coter; and Cecille
Ellorin. The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) was filed on March 14, 2022.
Plaintiffs allege 27 causes of action in this case.
Defendant
County of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or the “County”) filed the instant motion
for protective order on August 26, 2024. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on September
12, 2024. Defendant replied on September 18, 2024.
Legal
Standard
Before, during, or after a deposition, any
party may move promptly for a protective order, which must be accompanied by a
meet-and-confer declaration under CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2025.420(a).) The
court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to
protect a party or deponent from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2025.420(b).) This protective
order may include, but is not limited to one or more of the directions set
forth in CCP §§ 2025.420(b)(1)-(16). Pursuant to Section 2017.020, “[t]he Court
shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense,
or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the
information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court
may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a
party.” (CCP =§ 2017.020.)
A party may promptly move for a protective
order when an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible
things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded. (CCP §
2031.060(a).) This motion must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration
under CCP § 2016.040. (Id.) “The court, for good cause shown, may make
any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and
expense.” (CCP § 2031.060(b).) This protective order may include but is not
limited to one or more of the directions set forth in CCP §§
2031.060(b)(1)-(6).
Discussion
Defendant County
of Los Angeles moves for a protective order directing Plaintiffs Markeitha
Harris and Vanessa Johnson to withdraw the following deposition notices
propounded on January 11, 2023: (1) Plaintiff Harris’ Request for Admissions,
Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Request for Production, Set Two,
Form Interrogatories, General, Set One and (2) Request for Production, Set Two,
Form Interrogatories, General, Set One Request for Production, Set Two, Form
Interrogatories, General, Set One.
Defendant argues
that Plaintiffs represented that they would withdraw the discovery requests.
(Mot. at p. 6.) Moreover, Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs are seeking
responses to discovery already propounded and responded to. (Id.) In
opposition, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to meet and confer in good
faith and merely threatened them. Plaintiffs also argue that there is no
statutory authority that allows a party to bring one motion for protective
order as to 8 sets of discovery. (Opp. at p. 3.) Plaintiffs further argue that they
never withdrew the discovery as alleged by Defendant. (Id.) In reply, Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence such as emails showing
that Defendant agreed to respond to the disputed discovery. (Reply at p.2.)
a.
Meet and Confer
Defendant’s
counsel declares that the parties attempted to meet and confer by telephone
numerous times on the issues concerning the depositions. (Yousefi Decl. at pp.
3-4.) Defendant’s counsel attests that the parties, however, could not reach an
agreement to resolve the issues. (Id.)
The court finds
Defendant sufficiently shows that it met and conferred in good faith to resolve
the issues raised in its motion for protective order. Defendant shows that the
parties met and conferred numerous times to resolve these issues but were
unable to reach an agreement.
b.
Merits
Here, Defendant has not shown good cause for a
protective order. For instance, Defendant’s reliance on its emails (Exhibit D
& E) fails to show that Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the discovery. The
Exhibits only show both parties’ counsel disagreeing with each other about the
meet and confer recollection. (See Exhibit D & E at pp. 110-117.) Moreover,
Defendant failed to show that the requests were duplicative and only provides
conclusory statements. Thus, Defendant failed to show that the expense, or
intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the
information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
Accordingly,
the Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED.
Request
for Monetary Sanctions
Misuses
of the discovery process include using a discovery manner that does not comply
with specified procedures or employing a discovery method in a manner or to an
extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, oppression, undue burden, or expense.
(Code of Civil Procedure 20230.10)
Plaintiffs
request for $4,800.00 as monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel
of record with respect to this motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel requests the amount
based on 3 hours preparing and drafting the motion, opposition, and anticipates
3 more hours preparing and attending the hearing at a rate of $800.00 per hour.
(Zelig Decl. ¶ 14-15.) Defendant requests for $1,610.00 as monetary sanctions
against Plaintiffs and their counsel.
Nevertheless,
both parties’ counsel engaged in conduct which resulted in the miscommunication
and instant motion. (See Exhibit D and
E.) Thus, the Court denies sanctions for Plaintiffs. Also, since the Court
granted the instant motion, sanctions against Plaintiffs are not warranted.
Thus, the
request for sanctions is DENIED.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
September 25, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court