Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV24879, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV24879 Hearing Date: June 5, 2025 Dept: 40
24STCV24879
Francisco Herrera v. Healthright 360, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT, HEALTHRIGHT 360, TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to
discrimination based on his disabilities and/or medical conditions while he was
employed by Defendants. Defendants failed to accommodate Plaintiff and
retaliated against him by terminating his employment. Plaintiff alleges claims
for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), breach of
implied contract, and a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy.
II. ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff requests
an order compelling Defendant, Healthright 360 (“Defendant”), to provide
further responses to request for production of documents. After granting
Defendant additional time to respond, Defendant served numerous boilerplate
objections and failed to provide substantive responses to some of the requests
at issue. Defendant refuses to serve supplemental responses after many attempts
to meet and confer.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that the motion is unnecessary and premature.
Defendant provided all responsive documents in its supplemental response and
production, which render the motion moot. Plaintiff otherwise asks for
documents not in Defendant’s possession or control. The parties have not had an
adequate time to resolve the issues.
In reply, Plaintiff
argues that the belated supplemental responses are deficient and not code
compliant. Defendant must provide training materials and policies on
discrimination, accommodation, and related topics as well as communications
between relevant witnesses.
III. LEGAL
STANDARDS
A motion to
compel further responses to a document request is proper where the requesting
party believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, or a representation
of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive and/or an
objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)
The scope of
discovery is liberally construed in favor of disclosure “as a matter of right
unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Greyhound
Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
355, 377-378.) The broad scope of permissible discovery includes “any matter,
not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter
either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
served the document request on October 29, 2024. (Noriya Bragg decl., ¶ 4.)
Defendant served initial responses on December 20, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
The parties met and conferred about the responses from December 23, 2024
through January 28, 2025 at which time Defendant agreed to provide supplemental
responses. Defendant served supplemental responses on March 6, 2025, after
attempting to meet and confer, Plaintiff filed this motion on April 18, 2025. Plaintiff
has established that the supplemental responses are deficient, evasive, and not
code compliant.
Requests
31-40. Plaintiff requests training materials and policies regarding
discrimination and/or retaliation, accommodations, and the interactive process that
Defendant provided to Plaintiff and his supervisors. Defendant narrowed the inquiry
as a request for “interactive training materials.” (Plaintiff’s SS 3:8-20). The
requests are not vague or ambiguous. Defendant has not provided any
justification for its privacy objections or for the limited production.
Defendant
contends that it cannot produce propriety “interactive” training materials “maintained”
by a third-party vendor, “Relias.” (Opp. SS 4:10-12.) This is a new argument
not previously raised in Defendant’s initial and supplemental responses. Plaintiff
is asking for policy and training material that Defendant provided to its
employees for dealing with specific issues related to FEHA, such as engaging in
the interactive process which is required by statute. The request is not
limited to “interactive” training materials or information retained by a
third-party vendor. If Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control,
it must so state and affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has
been and specify whether the inability to comply is because the documents never
existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never
been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding
party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Defendant is required to identify with
specificity, the person or organization known or believed to have possession,
custody, or control of the relevant documents. (Id.)
Requests
49-55. Plaintiff requests communications between relevant named witnesses regarding
Plaintiff. Defendant agreed to provide “non-privileged” responsive documents but
only for communications about Plaintiff’s medical condition, medical treatment,
leaves of absence, and separation from employment. Defendant did not provide a
privilege log identifying what documents were withheld.
Defendant’s
responses are evasive. Any privileged documents that are withheld must be
identified in a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.) Defendant cannot unilaterally
limit the request. Defendant’s remedy is to seek a protective order. The
responses are note Code-compliant.
Defendant has
not shown substantial justification for the delayed and piecemeal response to
the requests at issue for which sanctions are warranted. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300 (c).) Plaintiff served discovery on October 29, 2024. (Bragg decl., ¶
4.) After seven months, Defendant provided limited production based on
Defendant’s narrowed interpretation of the requests and failed to provide
code-compliant responses.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified,
supplemental responses and production to Requests 31-40 and 49-55 as requested,
without objection or unilateral limitation. The responses shall comply with the
Code. Where applicable, Defendant must provide a privilege log.
Sanctions of $3,600
are imposed against Defendant, Healthright 360, and its counsel of record
jointly and severally ($450 x 8 hours). The supplemental responses, production,
and payment of sanctions to Plaintiff shall be made within 15 days.