Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV05424, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05424 Hearing Date: July 1, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: July 1, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiff Alfonso Manzo Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”)
Responding Party: Defendants
California Box Company and Eduardo Gonzalez
Motion for Leave to Reopen Limited Discovery
The Court has
considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed.
The motion is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Background
This
is an action arising from the wrongful termination of Plaintiff Alfonso Manzo
Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), as well as other wrongful actions taken against
Plaintiff during his employment with Defendant California Box Company (“CBC”).
On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants CBC,
Eduardo Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, alleging causes of
action for: (1) Unlawful Sexual Harassment in Violation
of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (2) Retaliation for
Complaining about Sexual Harassment in Violation of the Fair Employment and
Housing Act; (3) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of California’s
Fair Employment and Housing Act; (4) Disability Discrimination in Violation of
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (5) Failure to Engage in the
Interactive Process in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing
Act; (6) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (7) Retaliation for Seeking
Accommodation in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; and
(8) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
On
March 24, 2022, Defendant CBC filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On
June 17, 2022, Defendant Gonzalez filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On
April 10, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (04/10/23 Minute Order.)
On
April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) Unlawful Sexual
Harassment in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (2)
Retaliation for Complaining about Sexual Harassment in Violation of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act; (3) Failure to Prevent Harassment in Violation of
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (4) Disability Discrimination in
Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (5) Failure to
Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act; (6) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation
of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (7) Retaliation for Seeking
Accommodation in Violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; (8)
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (9) Intentional
Misrepresentation.
Also,
on April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint identifying
Nicholas Widera (“Widera”) as Doe 51 and Jose Luis Perez (“Perez”) as Doe 52.
On
February 1, 2024, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the ninth cause
of action in the FAC with 20 days leave to amend. (02/01/24 Minute Order.)
Also,
on February 1, 2024, the Court granted the ex parte application to
continue trial and all related discovery deadlines filed by Defendants CBC,
Gonzalez, Perez, and Widera. (02/01/24 Minute Order at p. 1.) The Court
continued jury trial from February 20, 2024 to September 3, 2024. (02/01/24
Minute Order at p. 2.) The Court indicated that “[t]he Court and counsel confer
regarding agreeing to open limited discovery. The Court informs the parties to
submit a stipulation to the Court regarding the limited discovery they agreed
too.” (02/01/24 Minute Order at p. 2.)
On
February 29, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the parties
agreed to open limited discovery on a select number of matters. (02/29/24 Order
at ¶¶ 5-7.) Additionally, Plaintiff was to dismiss the ninth cause of action
without prejudice. (02/29/24 Order at ¶¶ 1, 3.)
On
March 14, 2024, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for dismissal, the Court
dismissed the ninth cause of action in the FAC for intentional
misrepresentation without prejudice.
On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the
instant Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery. Plaintiff requests “an order
reopening limited discovery as to Defendant [CBC’s] responses to Plaintiff’s
supplemental request for production of documents. CBC served its responses on
January 19, 2024, or just one day before the discovery cutoff date.” (Not. of
Mot. at p. ii:5-7.) The motion is made on the grounds that “[t]he documents
produced by CBC on January 19, 2024 reek of fraud and evidence tampering, and
appear to have been prepared during litigation.” (Id. at p. ii: 8-9.)
Plaintiff is seeking “all electronically-stored information as to these
documents and seeks to further examine CBC’s President and CEO, Christian
Widera, and CBS’s Production Manager, Jose Luis Perez, concerning these
documents.” (Id. at p. ii: 10-11.)
On
June 17, 2024, Defendants CBC and Gonzalez filed and served an opposition
brief.
As
of June 27, 2024, no reply brief has been filed. Any reply brief was required
to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)
Legal
Standard
“[A]ny
party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings
on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or
before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the
action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) “Except as provided in Code
Civ. Proc. § 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not
operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd.
(b).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050(a) provides that “[o]n motion of any party,
the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a
motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to
reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.”
In
assessing a motion brought under Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050, a court analyzes
the following factors: (1) the necessity and the reasons for discovery; (2) the
diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the
hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not
completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any
likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will
prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere
with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the
length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date
presently set, for the trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd.
(b)(1)-(4).) A court has discretion on whether to grant a motion brought under
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2024.050. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2024.050, subd. (b).) “In law and motion practice, factual evidence is
supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc.
v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Good cause must be shown
to reopen discovery. (Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19
Cal.App.4th 1289, 1293.)
Discussion
a.
The Meet and Confer Requirement
A motion to reopen discovery “shall be
accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) “A meet and confer declaration in support
of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2016.040.)
The
Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met. Plaintiff’s
counsel, Arie Ebrahimian (“Ebrahimian”), provides a declaration setting forth
meet and confer efforts to resolve the issues raised in the instant motion.
(Ebrahimian Decl., ¶¶ 21-28; Exhs. 12-15.)
Thus,
the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.
b.
Evidence in Support of the Motion
In
support of the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel declares the following: this case
was initially set for a February 20, 2024 jury trial. (Ebrahimian Decl., ¶ 2.)
Due to an irreconcilable trial conflict of counsel for Defendant CBC, on
February 1, 2024, the Court continued jury trial to September 3, 2024. (Id., ¶ 2.) Given that trial
was initially set for February 20, 2024, the discovery cutoff date was Monday,
January 22, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3.) Since the inception of this action,
Plaintiff has diligently engaged in discovery. (Id., ¶ 4.) To date,
Plaintiff has taken seven depositions and has propounded several sets of
written discovery on Defendants CBC and Gonzalez consisting of special
interrogatories, form interrogatories, document demands, and requests for
admission. (Id., ¶ 4.)
On
January 19, 2024, and one day before the January 22, 2024 discovery cutoff
date, Defendant CBC responded to Plaintiff’s first supplemental request for
production of documents by producing documents consisting of a March 10, 2021
memorandum from Plaintiff’s former supervisor and Defendant CBC’s Production
Manager, Defendant Perez, to Plaintiff regarding a shift change. (Id., ¶ 5.) Moreover,
Defendant CBC produced numerous email exchanges from 2021 between Defendant
CBC’s President and CEO, Christian Widera, and others relating to production at
Defendant CBC. (Id., ¶ 5.)
Counsel
then attaches Defendant CBC’s discovery responses and portions of deposition
testimony. (Id., ¶¶ 6-20; Exhs. 1-11.)
c.
Evidence
in Opposition to the Motion
In opposition to the
motion, counsel for Defendants CBC and Gonzalez, Miguel Landeros (“Landeros”)
provides a declaration. Mr. Landeros states that in or around April 2022, he
provided Mr. Mandoni with Plaintiff’s work file and such file included two
printed memorandums dated March 10, 2021. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 4.) Counsel was
asked by Mr. Mandoni to locate the source document, or word version, of such
document and he informed Mr. Mandoni that the document did not exist as it was
not saved and that only a printed copy remained. (Id., ¶ 5.)
d. Analysis
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown
good cause for reopening discovery as to
Defendant CBC’s January 19, 2024 responses to
Plaintiff’s supplemental request for production of documents. While Plaintiff
argues that Defendant CBC has produced false and fraudulent discovery responses
such as corrective action forms and investigative reports (Memorandum of Points
and Authorities at pp. 2-5), the declaration of counsel does not state such
fact. Critically, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel in support of the
motion does not state: (1) the necessity and reasons for the discovery; (2) why
the discovery motion was not completed earlier; or (3) that Defendants will not
be prejudiced if the motion is granted. In fact, Defendants’ counsel declares
that the memorandum at issue giving rise to the instant motion was produced to
Plaintiff in April of 2022. Thus, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing
under CCP § 2024.050 to reopen discovery. The Court reminds Plaintiff that
facts are stated in declarations pursuant to Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
Superior Court, supra¸53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.
Based on the foregoing, the motion to
reopen discovery filed by Plaintiff Alfonso Manzo Gonalez is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
July 1, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court