Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Vazquez v. B E Products, Inc., et al.", Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Ashley Vazquez and Joshua Vazquez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents & Defendant B E Products, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order

Plaintiffs Ashley Vazquez and Joshua Vazquez move to compel defendant B E Products, Inc. to provide further responses to Request Nos. 30, 39, 62, 63 and 82 in plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted in part and denied part.

Defendant B E Products, Inc. moves for entry of a protective order governing “confidential information” produced in this case.  The court exercised its discretion to consider plaintiffs’ late-filed opposition.  Defendant’s motion for entry of a protective order is granted in part and denied in part.

Requests Nos. 30, 39, 62 and 63 seek relevant information and/or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Defendant has not justified its objections or its limitations of the responsive documents to be produced in response to Request Nos. 30, 39, 62 and 63.  Defendant is ordered to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive Request Nos. 30, 29, 62 and 63 in defendant’s possession, custody or control by August 21, 2023.  Should defendant withhold any responsive documents based on any privilege, defendant shall also serve by August 21, 2023 a privilege log identifying all documents defendant has withheld from production on the basis of a privilege(s).  The log shall identify the privilege and set forth sufficient information for plaintiff and the court, if necessary, to evaluate the privilege claims.

Request No. 82 is vague and premature.  Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to Request No. 82 is denied.  This order shall not be construed as affecting or limiting in any way defendant’s obligation to timely file and serve all required pretrial and trial documents, including a trial exhibit list and trial exhibits. 

Defendant’s motion for entry of a protective order governing the production of “confidential information” is denied.  Defendant has not presented evidence demonstrating that a broad protective order is necessary.  The following documents produced by defendant shall, however, be labeled “CONFIDENTIAL: SUBJECT TO COURT ORDER;” shall be disclosed only to parties, counsel of record for this case and their staffs, experts or consultants retained for this case, and the court and court staff; and shall be used only for purposes of this litigation:

•         Defendant’s payroll summary

•         Defendant’s payroll worksheet

•         Group Training Form Re: Inappropriate Touching in the Workplace (June 29, 2018)

•         Group Training Form Re: Inappropriate Touching in the Workplace (July 4, 2018)

•         June 29, 2018 employee warning form issued to Tinh Nguyen

See Defendant’s Brief at 5:8-15.  Defendant has not demonstrated that the other documents identified in defendant’s brief (Brief at 5:8-15) contain confidential business or financial information.  To the extent defendant has not yet produced the documents identified on page 5 lines 8 through 15 of defendant’s brief in support of its motion for entry of a protective order, defendant is ordered to produce the documents by August 21, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ and defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied.

Plaintiffs to give notice.