Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV38742, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38742    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Kaden Sanchez’s motion to compel Defendant Turner’s Operations, Inc., to comply with its responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted. Defendant is ordered to comply within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

          Plaintiff Kaden Sanchez (“Sanchez”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Turner’s Operations, Inc. (“Turner”) (“Defendant”) to comply with its responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $8,181.65.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.) 

          Background

          On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff propounded discovery requests to Defendant, including Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFPs”).  (Decl. of Dilts ¶5, Exh. A.)  In relevant part, RFP Nos. 1 and 2 seek the payroll and timekeeping records of putative class members during the relevant time period, respectively.  (See Decl. of Dilts, Exh. A.)  On March 8, 2022, Defendant’s deadline to respond, Defendant’s counsel requested an extension of time.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶6.)  Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension to March 15, 2022, and asked Defendant to approve the content of an opt-out notice for aggrieved employee contact information.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶6.)  On March 15, 2022, Defendant’s counsel indicated that the opt out notice had been approved and that they would provide an approximate employee count to obtain bids that week, asking that their response deadline be continued to April 22, 2022, so that all the responses could be served along with the contact information for the employees following the notice period. (Decl. of Dilts ¶7.)  Plaintiff granted Defendant’s extension but noted that further extensions may not be provided given the upcoming trial date.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶7.)

Plaintiff followed up with Defendant’s counsel on March 16, 18, 23, 30, and April 1, asking Defendant to follow through on their promise to provide an approximate employee count so the opt-out notice could be sent out, as was the intended purpose of the extension.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶8.)  On April 1, Plaintiff indicated that no further extensions would be provided due to the lack of response and that the entire purpose of the extension had been frustrated.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶8.)  On April 6, 2022, Defendant’s counsel finally provided an approximate employee count of “640+.” (Decl. of Dilts ¶9.)  On April 22, 2022, Defendants served responses without verifications.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶10, Exh. B.) 

On June 10, 2022, the Parties participated in Informal Discovery Conference with the Court.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶18.) On June 20, 2022, Defendant’s counsel noted by email that Defendant agreed to produce responsive documents as requested, noting that he will “see how long the process should take, given the anonymization/redactions that will likely be required.”  (Decl. of Dilts ¶19, Exh. C.)  On July 20, 2022, Defendant’s counsel stated that some, but not all, materials would be produced on July 25, 2022.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶21, Exh. D.)  On July 25, 2022, Defendant produced supplemental responses.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶22, Exh. E.)  In relevant part, Defendant responded to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 that “[p]ursuant to the meet and confer process completed by the parties, Defendant will produce all non-privileged and responsive documents to this request, in the matter agreed to by the Parties.”  (Decl. of Dilts ¶22, Exh. E.) By the date of the motion, Defendant had not produced the  payroll and timekeeping data.  (Decl. of Dilts ¶¶23-27.)

          On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  Defendant filed its opposition on January 24, 2023.  Plaintiff filed his reply on January 30, 2023.

Motion to Compel Compliance

Unless limited by order of the court, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (C.C.P. §2017.010.)  The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally. Information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.  (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

C.C.P §2031.320(a) provides:  

If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.  

Defendant argues it has agreed to comply with the requests as reasonably able, however Defendant’s counsel and his family have tested positive for COVID-19 multiple times, requiring his absence from the office and rendering him unable to make progress toward producing the requested records.  (Decl. of DeBus ¶3.)  Defendant’s counsel declares he was unable to work towards producing the requested records, as they require “anonymization” via redactions of identifying information, a lengthy process that is to be overseen by Defendant’s counsel.  (Decl. of DeBus ¶4.)

Defendant’s counsel declares further personnel issues outside of his control have also caused significant delays to the production of the requested documents.  (Decl. of DeBus ¶6.) 

Defendant does not dispute that it agreed to produce responsive documents to Plaintiff and failed to do so.  Defendant does not dispute it still has not produced the documents as of the filing of its opposition seven months after the requests were propounded on Defendant.

          Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for Defendant to comply with its responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted.

          Request for Monetary Sanctions

C.C.P. §2031.320(b) provides that a court “shall” impose monetary sanctions against a party or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel compliance unless the party subject to sanctions shows “substantial justification” for its actions.  Here, given the prolonged periods of illness and change in personnel, the court denies imposition of sanctions.

Dated:  February _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court