Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV13094, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13094    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 39

Ramiro Mata Moya v. Chipmasters Manufacturing, Inc.

Case No. 21STCV13094

Motion to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiff Ramiro Mata Moya (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”) served on Defendant Chipmasters Manufacturing, Inc. (“Defendant”).  The Court rules as follows:

            RPD #1 – Denied.  However, the Court orders Defendant to prepare a privilege log for any privileged documents.

            RPD #2 – Granted.  Defendant’s response is not code-compliant because it merely states that “no responsive documents exist.”  Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, Defendant must specify whether  documents “never existed” or whether they once existed and “ha[ve] been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or ha[ve] never been, or [are] no longer in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”  Defendant also must specify the name and address of anyone believed to have possession, custody, or control of the documents. 

            RPD #3 – Denied.  However, the Court orders Defendant to prepare a privilege log for any privileged documents.

            RPD #4 – Denied.  However, the Court orders Defendant to prepare a privilege log for any privileged documents.

RPD #5 – Granted.  Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to other employees.  Where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant is liable for Labor Code violations due to company-wide policies that impacted its California employees, the plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery on all California employees “as a first step to identifying other aggrieved employees and obtaining admissible evidence of the violations and policies alleged in the complaint.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 543.)  Accordingly, Defendant must respond to this request for production, which seek information about other employees in California.  However, the Court will not order Defendant to reveal the identities of its employees without providing the employees notice and an opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of their identities and contact information, under Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554. 

            RPD #6 – Denied.  However, the Court orders Defendant to prepare a privilege log for any privileged documents.

            RPD #7 – Denied.  However, the Court orders Defendant to prepare a privilege log for any privileged documents.

            RPD #8 – Denied.  The request for production is overly broad, seeking every memoranda relating to the terms and conditions of employment for every employee over the past four years.  The request is not limited to policies concerning meal breaks or rest breaks.

            RPD #9 – Denied.  However, the Court orders Defendant to prepare a privilege log for any privileged documents.

RPD #10 – Granted.  Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to other employees.  Where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant is liable for Labor Code violations due to company-wide policies that impacted its California employees, the plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery on all California employees “as a first step to identifying other aggrieved employees and obtaining admissible evidence of the violations and policies alleged in the complaint.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 543.)  Accordingly, Defendant must respond to this request for production, which seek information about other employees in California.  However, the Court will not order Defendant to reveal the identities of its employees without providing the employees notice and an opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of their identities and contact information, under Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554. 

            Sanctions – The Court denies all requests for sanctions.

            Notice – Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.