Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV06298, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV06298    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 34

Plaintiff Yasmeen Masoud’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Answers to

Special Interrogatories, Set Two, from Defendant Ceragem International, Inc. is MOOT. Sanctions are declined.

Background   

Plaintiff Yasmeen Masoud (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following:

Ceragem International, Inc. (“Defendant”) owns and operates stores devoted to selling therapeutic massage chairs and tables. Defendant regularly employed more than five people during the time period alleged herein. In January 2022, Defendant hired Masoud to work as an employee at its store in Cerritos, CA. Plaintiff is female, raised in Qatar, and is of Arabic descent. She wears a hi jab 3 and is of the Islamic faith. On January 17, 2022, Defendant promoted Masoud to the store manager position at Cerritos at a salary of $41,600 per year. On July I, 2022, Defendant increased her salary to $50,000 a year to be the Cerritos store manager. On November 20, 2022, Defendant increased her salary to $63,000 a year to be the store manager at its Century City location. During Plaintiff's employment as a store manager, Defendant paid higher salaries 11 to its male store managers than Masoud. These male store managers performed substantially similar work as Masoud. Masoud excelled as a store manager. She consistently met Defendant’s expectations for her position. On January 12, 2023, Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment. Defendant told Plaintiff that they terminated Plaintiff on the basis that she was "too young". Plaintiff's supervisor, Jake Kim, and a marketing executive, known to Plaintiff as "Mr. Kim", told Plaintiff that the decision to terminate her employment, and the reasoning motivating her termination (being "too young"), came directly from the CEO of Ceragem, J.W. Oh. This reason was false. Defendant terminated Plaintiff on the basis of her being a Muslim female from Qatar who wore a hi jab. Moreover, Defendant terminated Plaintiff because it favored Korean and white male employees.

On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

1.               Equal Pay Act

2.               Gender Discrimination

3.               Racial Discrimination

4.               Religious Discrimination

5.               National Origin Discrimination

The Final Status Conference is scheduled for January 6, 2024, and the Jury Trial is scheduled for January 13, 2024.

Legal Standard

“[T]he propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[,] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[, and/or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)

Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two (i.e., Nos. 26-30.) Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $9,862.50.

Merits

Plaintiff’s counsel Nicholas Lynes (“Lynes”) represents as follows:

On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant the subject discovery. (Lynes Decl., ¶ 13.) On July 2, 2024, Mr. Kaufman sent Defendant’s counsel a correspondence regarding Defendant’s improper discovery objections. (Id., ¶ 14.) Defendant failed to respond to the correspondence or meet the deadline of July 11, 2024. (Id., ¶ 14.) On July 23rd, and July 24, 2024, Defendant’s counsel was emailed concerning a future meet and confer. (Id., ¶ 15.) On July 24th, Defendant’s counsel responded, and on July 26th, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsels telephonically met and conferred in which Defendant’s counsel agreed to provide further responses on or before August 9th. (Id..) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant has not provided further responses, necessitating this Motion. (Id., ¶ 17.)

The requested discovery seeks the following:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: IDENTIFY the compensation of YOUR California located Store Managers by pay period, name, or other identifier, position, and compensation per pay period.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: IDENTIFY each person employed as the store manager at the Cerritos store between January 17, 2022, and January 15, 2023.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: IDENTIFY each person who worked a shift at the Cerritos store between January 17, 2022, and January 15, 2023.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: IDENTIFY each person who worked a shift at the Mission Viejo store between January 17, 2022, and January 15, 2023.

On September 6, 2024, Defendant’s counsel opposed the motion and declared that supplemental responses were provided to Plaintiff on September 5, 2024. It also sought sanctions in the same amount requested by Plaintiff. Prior to filing Plaintiff’s motion, counsel for both parties met and conferred concerning the subject discovery, In fact, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel invited Defendant’s counsel to further discuss resolving the issue. (Declaration of Seunghyun Kim, Exh. B.) Nevertheless, despite this “invitation” Plaintiff soon followed up with the instant motion.

The court has reviewed Defendant’s amended responses served on September 5, 2021. It finds that Defendant has complied with its obligation of supplement its responses. To the extent Plaintiff contends the responses are inadequate, an additional meet and confer will be necessary. This motion could have been avoided if the parties had continued their discussion. Instead, Plaintiff despite inviting further discussion filed the motion.

The court declines to award sanctions, given the inability of the parties to meet their respective obligations.