Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV06955, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06955 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: 45
ELVIA
Plaintiff,
vs. DEL
Defendants. |
DEPARTMENT
[TENTATIVE] RULING
Action Trial |
Hearing
date: August 20, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Elvia Herrera (“Plaintiff”)
Responding
Party: Defendant Del Taco LLC (“Defendant”)
Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents,
Set One and Request for Sanctions
The Court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
The
motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Background
Plaintiff
filed her Complaint for Damages on March 30, 2023, asserting five causes of
action relating to her previous employment with Defendant. Plaintiff
asserts the following claims: 1) work environment harassment, 2) failure to
prevent discrimination and harassment, 3) retaliation, 4) whistleblower
retaliation, and 5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Plaintiff’s claims are primarily based on allegations that a coworker “verbally
assaulted” her and asked sexual questions of Plaintiff and other co-workers.
On
February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
On
June 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
On
July 24, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed
a reply. On the same day, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s Separate
Statement in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Del Taco LLC’s
Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Request
for Sanctions.
Legal
Standard
California Code
of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(a) provides in pertinent part: On receipt of a
response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the
demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand
if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement
of compliance with the demand is incomplete (2) A representation of inability
to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive (3) An objection in the
response is without merit or too general.
The motion must be made within 45
days after service of the verified response or any supplemental verified
response. (CCP § 2033.290(c).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and
confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2033.290(b).)
Discussion
Meet and Confer
On
October 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel initially contacted Defendant’s counsel
to discuss Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents, Set One. (Thompson Amended Decl.., ¶ 8, Exhibit I). On October 27,
2023, Mr. Patterson and I spoke over the phone regarding Defendant’s response
to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Id. at ¶
9.) During this phone call, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Defendant
provide further responses to its objection only answers and reiterated that
Plaintiff would not stipulate to arbitration. (Id.) In response,
Defendant’s counsel stated that Defendant still intended to enforce the
arbitration agreement and would be filing a motion to compel arbitration. (Id.)
As a result, the abovementioned agreement was made in which Plaintiff’s
deadline to file a motion to compel further discovery response was extended. (Id.)
After Defendant has failed to file a motion to compel in the subsequent months,
Plaintiff’s counsel again attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s
counsel. (Id., ¶ 10, Exhibit K). Defendant’s counsel failed to respond
to Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt to find a mutually agreeable date and time to
meet and confer. (Id.) On February 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel again
reached out to Defendant’s counsel. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel
attempted to call Defendant’s counsel but was unable to reach him. (Id.)
Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel left a voicemail explaining the purpose of the
call was to discuss the status of the case. (Id.) However, in a February
25, 2024 email, Plaintiff’s counsel memorialized a meet and confer between the
parties on October 27, 2023: “We had a substantive discussion regarding
Defendant’s discovery responses on October 27, 2023.” (Reply at p. 3.)
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff has not made any attempt to meet and confer at all as to
Defendant’s objections prior to filing the Motion. (Patterson Decl. ¶ 8.) The
Court disagrees, two calls and one email are sufficient to meet and confer.
Defendant does not provide any information as to why it’s counsel failed to
respond to the requests. Therefore, the Court analyzes the motion on its
merits.
Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
Plaintiff moves
to compel further responses from Defendant for the Request for Production of
Documents, Set One Nos. 1-29. These twenty-nine (29) requests seek relevant
documents related to: the parties’ employment relationship, Plaintiff’s job
performance, Plaintiff’s job description, Plaintiff’s pay rate, the amount of
wages Plaintiff earned during employment, Defendant’s anti-harassment and
retaliation policies, Plaintiff’s complaints to Defendant and any investigation
into those complaints, Plaintiff’s suspension and termination, Defendant’s insurance
policies, and Plaintiff’s personnel file.
Here, Defendant
responds to each of these requests with the following:
“Defendant
hereby incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth
above as though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this request to
the extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter
of this litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds
it is vague and ambiguous . . . Defendant further objects to this request on
the grounds that it is overly broad in time and scope. Defendant further
objects to this request on the grounds it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and
harassing in that any response would cause Defendant undue burden and expense.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product
doctrine. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
proprietary, confidential, trade secret, financial and/or commercially
sensitive information. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds
it assumes facts not in evidence and/or calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant
further objects to this request on the grounds that it is duplicative of other
discovery propounded by Plaintiff. Defendant further objects to this request on
the grounds that Plaintiff signed an enforceable arbitration agreement, and the
propounded discovery is improper and premature.”
Plaintiff argues
that the requests are not vague or ambiguous and are easily discernible because
the “vague and ambiguous” words that Defendant points to in its responses have
easily discernible and commonly understood definitions and are frequently used
in everyday parlance. (Mot. at p. 7.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s requests only seek
documents related to her employment with Defendant or created during her
employment. (Id. at p. 8.)
Additionally, Plaintiff’s
requests do not seek to obtain personal or confidential information from
Defendant, Defendant’s employees, or Defendant’s business dealings, and
strictly seeks only relevant documents such as the parties’ employment
relationship, Plaintiff’s job performance, Plaintiff’s job description,
Plaintiff’s pay rate, the amount of wages Plaintiff earned during employment,
Defendant’s anti-harassment and retaliation policies, Plaintiff’s complaints to
Defendant and any investigation into those complaints, Plaintiff’s suspension
and termination, Defendant’s insurance policies, and Plaintiff’s personnel
file. (Id. at p. 9.)
Also, Plaintiff’s
motion is proper because it was timely filed because on October 27, 2023,
Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel reached an agreement in which
Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel further discovery response
would be extended to thirty (30) days following an order from the Court
deciding the enforceability of Defendant’s arbitration agreement. (Thompson
Decl., ¶ 9, Exhibit J).
Defendant argues
that its objections are meritorious because Plaintiff’s right to discovery is
not unlimited and many of the discovery requests are overbroad, irrelevant,
ambiguous, and invade third parties’ privacy. Moreover, the motion is
procedurally improper and untimely.
The Court finds
that only Defendant’s argument regarding timeliness has merit. On September 12,
2023, Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery request. (Exhibit
D.) The motion must be made within 45
days after service of the verified response or any supplemental verified
response. (CCP § 2033.290(c).) This motion was made on February 29,
2024, which is 170 days from service of the verified responses. Although, the
parties’ agreed that Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel further
discovery response would be extended to thirty (30) days following an order
from the Court deciding the enforceability of Defendant’s arbitration agreement,
the Court has not decided the enforceability of Defendant’s arbitration
agreement because Defendant has failed to file a motion to compel arbitration. (Thompson
Decl., ¶ 9, Exhibit J.) Therefore, the instant motion is premature.
Plaintiff may
refile the motion after the Court decides the enforceability of Defendant’s
arbitration agreement. Any determination
of the arbitration agreement’s enforceability is beyond the scope of the
instant pleading.
Based
on the foregoing, the Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents, Set One
and Requests for Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: August 20, 2024
_______________________
MEL
RED RECANA
Judge
of the Superior Court