Judge: Michael Small, Case: 22STCV06232, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06232    Hearing Date: April 24, 2024    Dept: 57

Plaintiff Luis Fernandez sued his former employers Defendants Zebra Technologies Corporation (“Zebra”) and Stephen Mannion for discrimination on the basis of age in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.   Fernandez was terminated when he was sixty-five from his position as Manger of Manufacturing at Zebra.  After terminating Fernandez, Zebra hired Michael Sibigtroth, who was 60 years old to replace Fernandez.   Fernandez contends that Zebra hired Sibgtroth, whom Fernandez says was not qualified for the position, over more than a dozen younger applicants for the position, whom Fernandez says were qualified, to cover up Zebra’s discrimination against Fernandez on the basis of his age.

Pending before the Court is Fernandez’s motion for an order compelling Zebra to provide further responses to Fernandez’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, Nos. 43-59 (“the Requests”).  The Requests seek a]ny and all DOCUMENTS which evidence, refer, RELATE TO and/or otherwise pertain to” each of the sixteen individuals’ “submission for the Manager Manufacturing role for [Zebra], including, but not limited to, resumes, curriculum vitae, job applications and/or the complete talent acquisition file.” (Separate Statement; Berry Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The names of these applicants were obtained through prior discovery. (Id., ¶ 5.)  (The Court notes that Request Nos. 44 and 58 are duplicates as both seek the application documents submitted by Daniel Darby.)   Fernandez also requests in the motion an order awarding monetary sanctions against Zebra and its counsel, Yesenia Gallegos of McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,850.00 for misuse of the discovery process.

The Court is granting the motion to the extent it seeks an order compelling further responses to the Requests. The Court is denying the motion to the extent it seeks an order awarding sanctions against Zebra and its counsel.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding 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 of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)  A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

The Court finds that Fernandez has demonstrated good cause for the Requests and that Zebra has not carried its burden to justify its objections to the Requests.  In the Court’s view, the requests are relevant to Fernandez’s contention that Zebra hired Sibigtroth to cover up its age discrimination against Fernandez.  Correspondingly, the requests also are relevant to Zebra’s affirmative defenses, which relate to its termination of Fernandez for poor performance.  And the requests are relevant to Fernandez’s request for an award of punitive damages against Zebra for malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent conduct in terminating Fernandez.   

Zebra’s objections largely center on the notion that Fernandez’s theory as to why Zebra hired Sibigtroth is far-fetched.  That may be so.  But in ruling on discovery motions, courts do not assess the strength or weaknesses of litigation theories.  That is for a jury, down the road.  Zebra’s objections on the ground that the Requests invade the privacy of the more than a dozen non-party applicants to replace Fernandez are insufficient to overcome Fernandez’s need for the information that he is seeking.  Of note here, Fernandez has stated that he is not seeking to depose those individuals, but rather, will inquire about their applications during his forthcoming deposition of Zebra’s person most knowledgeable.

The Court is denying Fernandez’s request for sanctions because Zebra’s position in this discovery dispute was substantially justified.  Put another way, Zebra’s arguments that Fernandez lacks good cause and that privacy interests are implicated were well-taken.