Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV24689, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24689    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 57

Plaintiff Thomas Chavez (“Chavez”) sued Oxford Global Resources, LLC ("Oxford") and Yamaha Motor Finance Corporation, U.S.A. (“Yamaha”).  Chavez alleges that he was formerly employed by Oxford and Yamaha and that they both wrongfully terminated him after he took early leave following the emergency c-section of his then-pregnant wife. 

Pending before the Court is a discovery motion of Yamaha's directed at Chavez. The motion arises from Requests for Production, Set Two ("the RFPs") that Yamaha propounded on Chavez.   There are four RFPs in dispute: numbers 29-32.  The motion is styled "Motion to Compel Responses" to the RFPs.   The Court is granting the motion in part and denying it in part.  The Court also is denying Yamaha's request for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Chavez in the form of Yamaha's attorney's fees incurred in connection with the motion.

As a threshold matter, the Court observes that Yamaha's discovery motion should have been styled as a "Motion to Compel Further Responses" to the RFPs, not a "Motion to Compel Responses" to the RFPs.  That is because Chavez did respond to the RFPs.  Yes, his responses consisted only of objections to the RFPs.  But the objections-only response should have triggered a "Motion to Compel Further," not a "Motion to Compel."  (Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(a).)  The difference in the type of discovery motion is important because, under California Rule of Court 3.1345(a)(3), a party moving to compel further responses to requests for production of documents must submit with the motion a "Separate Statement."  Separate Statements are not required, by contrast, for motions to compel responses, i.e. when the non-moving party has failed to respond at all to the request for production.  (Rule of Court 3.1345(b)(1).)  Yamaha failed to submit a Separate Statement along with its motion.  This failure provides grounds for the Court to deny Yamaha's motion in the exercise of its discretion.  (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893). 

The Court is, however, exercising its discretion to consider and rule on the substance of Yamaha's motion notwithstanding Yamaha's failure to comply with the procedural requirement of submitting a Separate Statement.   The Court is taking this tack for two reasons.  First, Chavez did not raise in his opposition to the motion the lack of a Separate Statement accompanying the motion.  Second, each of the RFPs and Chavez's objections to each of them are set forth in their entirety in the declaration of Yamaha's counsel in support of the motion.   This recitation did not include "[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses . . . to each matter in dispute," which is required in a Separate Statement.  (Rule 3.1345(c)(3).)  But the Court is nevertheless treating the declaration's recitation of the RFPs and Chavez's objections to them as a "concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute," which obviates the need for a separate statement (Rule 3.1345(b)(2).

Turning then to the substance of the motion, the Court is granting it as to RFP numbers 29, 30, and 31.  RFP number 29 demands that Chavez produce his tax returns for the calendar years 2021 through 2023.  RFP number 30 demands that Chavez produce his bank statements, showing all deposits, withdrawals, and daily balances for all of his bank accounts from January 1, 2021 through December 2023.   RFP number 31 demands that Chavez produce his “credit card statements, showing, all payments, advances and daily balances for all credit cards” he had from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023.

Chavez objected to these three RFPs on the grounds of relevance, overbreath, and privacy.  The Court disagrees with Chavez on each of those grounds.

In the Court’s view, RFP numbers 29, 30, and 31 are relevant.  Chavez s alleges in his complaint in this action that he incurred substantial debt and experienced significant financial turmoil immediately following his wrongful termination from Yamaha (and Oxford) in September 2022, and that Yamaha (and Oxford) are responsible for those damages.  Chavez has put his finances at issue with this allegation.  Yamaha is entitled to see his tax returns bank statements, and credit card statements to ascertain the evidentiary basis of Chavez’s claimed losses.  That Chavez provided financial information in his responses to Yamaha’s interrogatories does not render it unnecessary for Yamaha to be able to review the underlying documentation supporting those responses. 

RFP numbers 29, 30, and 31 are not overbroad.  They are tailored to capture financial information of Chavez’s for the calendar year prior to his departure from Yamaha, the calendar year of his departure, and the calendar year after his departure. 

Nor do RPF numbers 29, 30 and 31 unduly invade Chavez’s privacy.  Again, Chavez has put his finances directly at issue in this case.  Any privacy objection that he has to the production of his tax returns, bank statement, and credit card statements for just three calendar years is outweighed by the need for Yamaha to obtain that information to advance its defense to Chavez’s damages claim.

In sum, the Court is compelling Chavez to provide further responses to RFP numbers 29, 30, and 31.  The Court will discuss with counsel for both sides a reasonable due date for the further responses.

The Court is, however, denying RFP number 32.  It demands that Chavez produce “all documents concerning [his] financial situation” from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023.  Chavez objected to RFP number 32 on the ground, inter alia, that it is vague and ambiguous.  The Court agrees with that objection.  Put simply, it is difficult to understand what is meant by the phrase “financial situation.”  No further response to RFP number 32 is being compelled.

The Court is denying Yamaha’s request for monetary sanctions against Chavez.  The position that Chavez staked out in his responses to the RFPs was substantially justified. Accordingly, monetary sanctions against him are unwarranted.