Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV31305, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV31305    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Six) is granted in part and denied in part. Code-compliant production is to be completed within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

          Plaintiff Jennifer Hua (“Hua”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Western Asset Management, LLC (“WAM”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Six) (“RFP”), Nos. 250-257, 260-261, and 262-263.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; Reply, pg. 6; C.C.P. §2031.280 et seq.)  Plaintiff further requests sanctions against Defendant and its attorney of record in the amount of $8,560.00.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)  In opposition, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,075.  (Opposition, pg. 2.)

          Background

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges unequal pay, gender discrimination, and wrongful termination against Defendant, her former employer.  During the discovery process, Defendant identified former Chief Information Security Officer and Senior Manager, John Quan, and former Manager of Infrastructure and Operations, Brendan Heffernan, as key witnesses.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶3.)  On February 28, 2022, and on March 3, 2022, Quan and Heffernan, respectively, submitted declarations in support of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶3.)  Plaintiff’s counsel deposed Quan on May 6, 2022, and deposed Heffernan on April 14, 2022.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶4.)  On May 7, 2022, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant RFP (Set Six) that related to Quan’s and Heffernan’s deposition testimonies.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶7, Exh. C.)  On June 9, 2022, Defendant provided responses that Plaintiff regarded as evasive.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶¶8-9, Exhs. D, E.)  On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted discovery referee, Hon. Judge Stone, to resolve the discovery issue.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶10, Exh. F.)  On July 6, 2022, Defendant agreed to supplement its responses.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶12.)  Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 25, 2022.  On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed its opposition.  On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed her reply.

Meet and Confer

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by meet-and confer-declarations per C.C.P. §2016.040 demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt of an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (C.C.P. §§2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2).)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares on June 10, 2022, she sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s June 2022 responses.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶9, Exh. E.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant failed to meet and confer and Plaintiff’s counsel then involved discovery referee, Hon. Judge Stone, on July 5, 2022, to resolve the discovery issue.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶10, Exh. F.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares parties met and conferred telephonically on July 6, 2022, and Defendant agreed to supplement its responses to Plaintiff’s RFP (Set Six) Nos. 250-267.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶11.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares that to date, Defendant has not provided supplemental responses.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶12.)  However, Defendant’s counsel declares it supplemented its responses to Plaintiff’s RFP (Set Five) on August 10, 2022.  (Decl. of Morphy ¶5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel demonstrated a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by this motion.

Motion to Compel Further

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to request Nos. 250-257, 260-261, and 262-263.  (Reply, pg. 6.)

          Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause in support of her argument for the discovery sought as it pertains to her equal pay claim.  Quan’s deposition testimony makes reference to “consolidated documents” that he reviewed and relied on during the compensation review process, which includes “performance ratings, discretionary compensation recommendations, recommendation for promotions,” of IT operation employees, including Plaintiff.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶5, Exh. A at 105:8-106:3, 109:5-9.)  Quan further testified about Plaintiff’s inability to resolve production issues and Plaintiff’s work on underperforming databases.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶5, Exh. A at 39:1-7, 40:21-23, 41:6-18, 41:25-42:10.)

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 

1.    Defendant shall produce all documents reflecting, regarding, including comments or revisions by Jeff Blaisdell, John Quan, Henry Cherry, Jim Hirschman, related to the “consolidated documents” referenced in Quan’s May 6, 2022, deposition testimony for 2016-2020.  (See RFP Nos. 250-257 [the Court notes that Nos. 256 and 257 are identical].)

2.    Defendant shall produce all documents, including emails and reports  pertaining to Plaintiff’s “inability to resolve production issues” and her work on underperforming databases as a database administrator referenced in Quan’s May 6, 2022, deposition testimony.  (See RFP Nos. 260-261)

3.    Defendant shall produce “responsibility agreements” for 2016-2020 that are referenced in Heffernan’s deposition.  (See RFP Nos. 264, 265, 266, 267.)

4.    The requests for further production as to RFP Nos. 258, 259, 264-265 are moot.

5.    All other requests for further production, including RFP Nos. and 262, 263, 266-267, are denied.

Insofar as Defendant is claiming privilege, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log describing with particularity the document, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of that claim.  (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Defendant shall provide supplemental responses in compliance with this order within 15 days.  

Sanctions

In light of this Court’s mixed ruling, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Dated:  March_____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court