Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01059, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01059 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Production of Documents, Set No. Two, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount
of $3,060.00
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Corina Medina
Resp. Party: Defendant California Herbal Remedies, Inc.
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request to Compel Further Production of
Requests Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 33. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request to
Compel Further Production of Requests Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff Corina Medina
filed her Complaint against Defendant California Herbal Remedies, Inc. on
causes of action regarding violations of the Labor Code and the Business &
Professions Code.
On May 10, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer.
On July 14, 2022, the Court: (1) granted
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories;
(2) granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s
Special Interrogatories; (3) granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents as to Requests
for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, and 17 only; and (4) denied Plaintiff’s
three Requests for Sanctions.
On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed another
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set No. Two, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $3,060.00
(“Motion”). Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Edward W. Choi;
(2) Separate Statement; (3) Proposed Order; and (4) Proof of Service.
On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed its
Opposition. Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Gustavo Lamanna;
and (2) Separate Statement.
On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed her
Reply. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Supplemental Declaration of Edward W.
Choi; and (2) Proof of Service.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
A motion to compel further responses to
requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause
justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,’ the burden is on the moving party
to show both: [¶] Relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in
the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and [¶]
Specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary
for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) [Citations.] [¶] The
fact that there is no alternative source for the information sought is an
important factor in establishing ‘good cause’ for inspection. But it is not
essential in every case.” (Edmon & Karnow, California Practice Guide: Civ.
Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 8:1495.6.) “For discovery
purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in
evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]
Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is
discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation]
These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior
Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving
party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections
made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to
interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶
8:1496.)
II.
Discussion
A. Requests for Production of Documents
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant
to provide further responses to the following Requests for Production:
REQUEST
NO. 18:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS provided to YOUR non-exempt California employees during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD regarding compliance with Labor Code section 226.7.
REQUEST
NO. 19:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS provided to YOUR non-exempt California employees during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD regarding compliance with Labor Code section 226.
REQUEST
NO. 20:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding
the recording of meal breaks by YOUR non-exempt employees in California during
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 21:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding
the providing of meal breaks to YOUR non-exempt employees in California during
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 22:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding
the payment of meal period premium pay to YOUR non-exempt California employees
during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 23:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding
the providing of rest breaks to YOUR non-exempt employees in California during
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 24:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR policies, practices and procedures regarding
the payment of rest period premium pay to YOUR non-exempt California employees
during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 25:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR policies, procedures, and practices regarding
calculation and payment of all wages to YOUR non-exempt California employees
during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 26:
Produce
all itemized wage statements provided to all of YOUR California non-exempt
employees issued during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. (Names and all but the last 4
numbers of social security numbers can be redacted).
REQUEST
NO. 27:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS that show the time worked by of all of YOUR non-exempt California
employees at any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 28:
Produce
all timecards of YOUR California employees during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 29:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS that show the meal period start and end times of YOUR California
employees during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 30:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS that show the rest period start and end times of YOUR California
employees during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 31:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS that show the missed 30 minute unpaid breaks of YOUR California
employees during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 32:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS that show the missed breaks of YOUR California employees during
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
REQUEST
NO. 33:
Produce
all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR methods and processes in which payroll was
processed by YOU to YOUR California employees during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
(Motion, p. 4:16–21; Decl. Choi, Ex. A.)
B.
Some of the Requests for Production are
Overbroad or Invade the Privacy Rights of 3rd Party Employees
In its Responses to the Requests for
Production, Set No. 2, Defendant argues that the Requests for Production are
vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. (Decl. Choi, Ex. B.) In its Opposition,
Defendant points to similar language in the Court’s Minute Order dated July 14,
2022 to argue that the current requests should be denied. (Opposition, p.
4:12–16.)
The Court agrees in part with this argument.
When Plaintiff previously requested items that used language “evidencing,
referring, relating, or pertaining” to documents regarding Defendant’s other
employees (i.e., employees who were not Plaintiff), the Court denied those
requests because it found them to be “vague, overbroad, and ambiguous.” (Minute
Order dated July 14, 2022, p. 11.) Some of the requests are overbroad because
they ask for a vast quantity of documents that are irrelevant to the litigation
at hand. Other violate Defendant’s employees’ privacy – which is an issue the
Court also brought up in its prior Order. (Minute Order dated July 14, 2022, p.
11.)
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request to Compel
Further Production of Requests Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 33.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request to Compel
Further Production of Requests Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.
C. Request
for Sanctions
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request to Compel Further Production of
Requests Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 33. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request to
Compel Further Production of Requests Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.