Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV38410, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV38410    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Bifurcate the Issues of Liability and Punitive Damages at Trial

Moving Party: Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Jawchyi C. Lee

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Six

Moving Party: Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Jawchyi C. Lee

SUBJECT:        Motion for an Order Compelling the Deposition of Dr. Gary Godorov

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jawchyi C. Lee

Resp. Party:    Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group

The hearing on the Motion to Bifurcate is ADVANCED from April 17, 2024 to April 15, 2024.  The Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED. Issues of punitive damages and Defendant’s financial condition are BIFURCATED from the initial trial in this matter until such time that the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding damages and finds Defendant guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud.

The Further RPDs Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve further responses to the RPDs within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order.

The Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED. Dr. Godorov shall be made available for a deposition within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT:

        The Motion to Bifurcate is unopposed.  The Court does not understand why both counsel didn’t simply stipulate to the bifurcation, thus saving counsel, the Court and its staff the time to write and analyze this unopposed – and statutorily-mandated – bifurcation.

BACKGROUND:

        On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff Jawchyi C. Lee filed his Complaint against Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (initially sued as Kaiser Foundation Hospitals) on causes of action of defamation, violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, violations of Labor Code section 6300 et seq. and 6400 et seq., and violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.

        On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC).

        On February 8, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer to the FAC.

        On March 25, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion to Bifurcate the Issues of Liability and Punitive Damages at Trial (“Motion to Bifurcate”).

        On April 2, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Six (“Further RPDs Motion”). In support of its Further RPDs Motion, Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; and (2) Proposed Order.

        On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Motion for an Order Compelling the Deposition of Dr. Gary Godorov (“Motion to Compel Deposition”). In support of his Motion to Compel Deposition, Plaintiff concurrently filed his Proposed Order.

        On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed its Opposition to the Motion to Compel Deposition.

        On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Further RPDs Motion.

        On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Response to the Motion to Bifurcate.

        On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Reply in support of the Motion to Compel Deposition.

        On April 10, 2024, Defendant filed its Reply in support of the Further RPDs Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Motion to Bifurcate

A.      Advancing the Hearing

Two of the motions are scheduled to be heard on April 15, 2024. However, the Motion to Bifurcate is scheduled to be heard on April 17, 2024. Plaintiff has filed a response indicating that he does not oppose the Motion to Bifurcate.

        So that the three motions can be heard and considered at the same time, the Court ADVANCES the April 17, 2024 hearing to April 15, 2024. Any party that wishes to contest this may do so at the hearing on April 15, 2024.

B.      Legal Standard

“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

“The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d).)

C.      Discussion

Defendant requests that the Court bifurcate the issue of punitive damages and preclude evidence of, reference to, and/or questions concerning the profits and/or financial condition of Defendants. (Motion to Bifurcate, p. 6:9–19.)

        Plaintiff indicates that he does not oppose this relief. (Response to Motion to Bifurcate, p. 1:22.)

Upon Defendant’s request, the Court is required to bifurcate the trial as to the evidence on Defendant’s financial condition and the issue of punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 3295.)

        The Court GRANTS the Motion to Bifurcate.

D.      Conclusion

The hearing on the Motion to Bifurcate is ADVANCED from April 17, 2024 to April 15, 2024. The Motion to Bifurcate is GRANTED. Issues of punitive damages and Defendant’s financial condition are BIFURCATED from the initial trial in this matter until such time that the trier of fact returns a verdict for Plaintiff awarding damages and finds Defendant guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud.

II.       Further RPDs Motion

A.      Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

B.      Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to the requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) that Defendant propounded on Plaintiff. (Further RPDs Motion, p. 10:10–12.) Notably, the requests propounded on Plaintiff are exactly the same as those recently requested of the United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”). (See Separate Statement; see also Motion for an Order Directing the Department of Veteran’s Affairs to Produce Documents at Trial and for Testimony by Department of Veteran’s Affairs Employee, Dr. Tom Blair, Exh. B.)

        Plaintiff opposes the Further RPDs Motion, arguing: (1) that California law does not require a plaintiff in a failure to hire/promote case to seek another job when he is already employed; and (2) that Plaintiff has an overriding privacy interest in his employment records from the VA. (Opposition, pp. 4:7–8, 5:22–23.)

        The Court allowed these records to be requested of the VA. To quickly summarize: (1) Defendant is allowed to discover these records in order to obtain evidence in support of its failure to mitigate defense to the cause of action for defamation; and (2) upon balancing the interests, Defendant should be able to obtain these records. (See Minute Order dated April 12, 2024.)

C.      Conclusion

The Further RPDs Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve further responses to the RPDs within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order.

III.     Motion to Compel Deposition

A.      Legal Standard

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g).)

B.      Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to order the deposition of Dr. Gary Godorov. (Motion to Compel Deposition, p. 4:21.)

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court to take the deposition of Dr. Godorov and there was no agreement to produce him after the discovery cut-off date; and (2) that Plaintiff’s request to depose Dr. Godorov is barred by judicial estoppel. (Opposition, p. 3:3–4, 3:17–18.)

The Court disagrees with Defendant’s arguments.

“Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that applies when ‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.’ The application of judicial estoppel, even when all necessary elements are present, is discretionary.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 842, quoting Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 986–987, also citing MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422.)

        It is not clear that judicial estoppel applies here. But even if it did, the Court would not exercise its discretion to apply it in this matter. Defendant has itself requested (and obtained) additional discovery past the discovery cut-off date; there is no reason why the Court should preclude Plaintiff from obtaining additional discovery when Defendant has done so. To the extent Plaintiff requires leave of Court to depose Dr. Godorov, Plaintiff shall have that leave.

C.      Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED. Dr. Godorov shall be made available for a deposition within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order.