Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV17427, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17427    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Teresa Delfin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on May 20, 2019 against Defendant Whittier College (“Defendant”). Delfin filed the operative Fifth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 24, 2022. The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) retaliation (FEHA), (3) failure to prevent/investigate/remedy retaliation and/or harassment (FEHA), (4) retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5), (5) sexual harassment hostile work environment (FEHA), (6) retaliation (Title IX), and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication of each of Plaintiff’s causes of action. Plaintiff opposes.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that on February 24, 2022, Defendant filed a notice of motion and motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication, and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the same (the “Motion”). The Motion was dated February 10, 2022.  However, no additional moving papers were filed on that date, despite the fact that the caption page of the Motion indicates that it is filed concurrently with a Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Defendant’s Appendix of Evidence; and a Proposed Order.  The Court reviewed the courtesy copies of the Separate Statement and the Appendix that were provided in spiral compilations for the Court along with the Motion.  The Separate Statement and the Appendix also have the February 10, 2022 dates.  The Court has now searched the docket and located a Separate Statement with that date that was filed on February 17, 2022, but the Court has not located any Appendix that was filed in support of the Motion.

The Court also notes that in the parties’ joint statement regarding evidentiary objections, filed on May 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s evidence include objections to portions of certain supplemental declarations. However, the Court is unable to locate these supplemental declarations in the docket.

Additionally, the courtesy copies of the compilation of the moving papers does not have an index and the documents are not separately tabbed; only exhibits are tabbed.  The compilation of the exhibits and declarations submitted in opposition also are not separately tabbed. The Court cannot spend hours paging through these very voluminous documents trying to find where one document begins and the next one ends. Revised compilations that are properly indexed and tabbed will have to be provided.

The Court will discuss this situation with the parties at the August 23, 2022 hearing.

In addition, in light of the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication to _______________ at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 50. 

The Court orders Defendant to file with the Court and serve (if not previously served) the Defendant’s Appendix of Evidence; [and] Proposed Order” referenced on the caption page of the Motion by ________. The Court orders the parties to promptly retrieve the compilations previously lodged with the Court and to relodge them with proper indexing and tabs by ________.   

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  August 23, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet