Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV35634, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV35634 Hearing Date: October 20, 2022 Dept: 39
Fredy Wembe v.
Target Stores, et al.
Case No.
21STCV35634
Motion to Compel
Further Responses
[TENTATIVE] Order
The Court
will be dark for motions on Thursday, October 20, 2022. The Court posts this tentative order in
advance of the hearing. Any party who
wishes the Court to hold a hearing on this motion shall appear on Thursday,
October 20, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., and shall inform the Court’s clerk, who will
continue the hearing to a date when the Court is available. In the alternative, the parties may email the
Court’s clerk at SMCDept39@LACourt.org before Thursday, October 20, 2022, at
9:00 a.m. to request a hearing. Any
email shall copy all parties. If neither
party requests a hearing, the Court will decide the motion without holding a
hearing and will adopt the following tentative order.
Plaintiff Fredy Wembe (“Plaintiff”)
filed this employment action against Target Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”). Now, Defendant moves to compel further
responses to its Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPDs”). If the propounding party deems responses
requests for production of documents unsatisfactory, the propounding party may
move to compel further responses. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) However, the
propounding party must file a motion to compel further responses within 45 days
after the responding party served verified responses, unless the parties agree
in writing to extend the time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The Court cannot consider an untimely motion
to compel further responses. (Vidal
Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.)
In this case, Plaintiff served the
responses at issue on February 17, 2022.
(Declaration of Melanie S. Rodriguez, ¶ 4.) The responses were served
electronically. (Id., Exh. #2.) Therefore, Defendant’s deadline to file this
motion was April 5, 2022. On that date,
Defendant’s counsel sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel confirming a
three-week extension. (See Declaration
of Whitney Nonnette Perry, Exh. A.) The
new deadline became April 26, 2022.
Then, on April 13, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email stating: “We
. . . agree to extend your motion to compel deadline by two weeks.” (Id., Exh. #7.) The new deadline became May 10, 2022. Then, on April 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent
an email stating: “We are agreeable to extending your motion to compel deadline
by 3 weeks.” (Ibid.) The new deadline became May 31, 2022. Finally, on May 17, 2022, Defendant’s counsel
emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm an extension by three weeks. (Declaration of Samantha C. Grant, Exh. F.) The new deadline became June 21, 2022. This motion was filed on June 14, 2022, and
therefore is timely.
The Court rules as follows on the
motion:
RPD #3 – Granted. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents or make clear that the DFEH complaint and Right to Sue letter notice
are the only responsive documents.
RPD #46 – Granted. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents or make clear that the DFEH complaint is the only responsive
document.
RPD #47 – Granted. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff shall produce all responsive
documents or make clear that the DFEH complaint is the only responsive
document.
RPD #53 – Granted. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents.
RPD #60 – Granted in part; denied
in part. Plaintiff shall produce “any
disability insurance claim or petition” that includes a description of
Plaintiff’s condition and/or any representation by Plaintiff concerning his
condition and/or employment at Target.
RPD #62 – Granted in part; denied
in part. Plaintiff shall produce any
“unemployment insurance claim or petition” that includes a description of
Plaintiff’s condition and/or any representation by Plaintiff concerning his
condition and/or employment at Target.
RPD #63 – Granted in part; denied
in part. Plaintiff shall produce any
“claim for Social Security benefits” that includes a description of Plaintiff’s
condition and/or any representation by Plaintiff concerning his condition
and/or employment at Target.
RPD #64 – Granted.
RPD #71 – Granted in part; denied
in part. Plaintiff shall produce all
responsive documents from January 1, 2011, to the present.
Sanctions – Defendant seeks
sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $5,000. The Court finds that the parties have been
unreasonable and should have been able to resolve these issues without the
assistance of the Court. Therefore, an
award of sanctions to either party would be unjust.
Conclusion and Order – Defendant’s
motion to compel further responses is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall serve further responses
consistent with this order, without objections, within thirty (30) days. The Court denies all requests for
sanctions. Defendant’s counsel shall
provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.