Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV09739, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09739    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Sana Shahin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on March 11, 2021 against defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and The Permanente Federation LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3) discrimination on the basis of disability/perceived disability, (4) disability-based associational discrimination, (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (6) failure to engage in interactive process, (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) failure to investigate and prevent discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940, subds. (j) and (k), (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (10) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and (11) retaliation due to exercising CFRA rights.  

On August 23, 2021 Department 1 of this Court issued a “Court Order Re Reassignment with Related Cases,” which provides, inter alia, that “[o]n August 2, 2021, Judge Holly J. Fujie issued an order relating cases 19STCV08042 and 21STCV09739. On August 13, 2021, Judge Fujie issued an order accepting a Peremptory Challenge filed in case 21STCV09739 by Plaintiff Sana Shahin and transferring both related cases to Department 1 for review and reassignment. This Court hereby determines these cases shall remain related and reassigned to Judge Teresa A. Beaudet in Department 50 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes.”

In this action, Defendants filed a motion for an order abating and staying the instant proceedings pending the completion of all appellate proceedings in the related case. On November 15, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the motion to stay, except as set forth in the November 15, 2021 Order. Defendants’ request for plea in abatement was denied. The Court’s November 15, 2021 Order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Court orders that Plaintiff may propound written discovery regarding the reduction in force that applied to Plaintiff and Plaintiff may take the deposition of the PMK on the same issue. Otherwise, the matter is stayed.”

In connection with the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that “[o]n April 1, 2022, Defendant’s counsel proposed May 6, 2022, for PMQ’s deposition. I agreed on the date.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) “On April 28, 2022, Defendant’s counsel requested to continue the PMQ deposition for the first time, to which [Plaintiff’s counsel] agreed and provided Plaintiff’s availability for a new date for the deposition.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 9.) “Defendant’s counsel agreed to August 12, 2022 for the PMQ deposition,” and Plaintiff’s counsel “sent an amended notice.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 10.) “On August 12, 2022, [Plaintiff’s counsel] received an email from Defendant’s counsel cancelling the PMQ deposition due to a personal emergency.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 11.)

“Between August 12, 2022, and October 13, 2022, [Plaintiff’s counsel] went back and forth with Defendant’s counsel to obtain another date for the PMQ’s deposition, finally setting it on December 6, 2022.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 12.) “On December 5, 2022, [Plaintiff’s counsel] received an email from Defendant’s counsel cancelling the deposition due to a personal emergency.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 13.) “On January 31, 2022, Defendant’s counsel proposed March 17, 2023, for the PMQ deposition, to which [Plaintiff’s counsel] immediately agreed.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 14.) “On March 15, 2023, Defendant’s counsel called [Plaintiff’s counsel] and again cancelled the PMQ deposition with no justified reasons, offering another date in April 2022.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 15.)

“[O]n May 3, 2023, Defendant’s counsel offered June 1, 2023, for the PMQ deposition.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 17.) “On May 3, 2023, [Plaintiff’s counsel] called Defendant’s counsel and told her that June 1 can work for Plaintiff but there needs to be some form of an assurance, including a court order that June 1 will not be taken off calendar. Defendant’s counsel represented that she needed to confirm with her client that her client can appear on June 1, 2023.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 18.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that as of the filing of the instant motion, “Defendant’s counsel has not confirmed June 1, 2023, has not provided an alternate date for the PMQ deposition.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order (1) compelling the deposition testimony of “Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Center’s PMQ” as to the reduction in force that applied to Plaintiff; and (2) awarding sanctions of $1,560.00 against “Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Center”[1] and its Attorneys of Record Nicole Perkin and Michelle Miller of Cozen O’Connor, jointly and severally. Defendants filed a response to the motion.

Discussion  

As an initial matter, in support of Defendants’ response to the motion, Defendants’ counsel states that “[u]pon receipt of the instant motion, Defendants began working to obtain new dates for the deponent, as it is clear Plaintiff wants to proceed with the PMK deposition prior to the formal lifting of the stay and without preserving the status quo for purpose of any settlement discussions. As of the filing of this Opposition, Defendants have offered two dates for Plaintiff for the PMK deposition to occur in August 2023. Defendants have also offered to have the deposition proceed on one of those dates via a stipulation and order for the Court to sign, thereby rendering this Motion unnecessary, but Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded as to whether the offered dates work.” (Perkin Decl., ¶ 12.)

In light of the foregoing and the requirement that the parties (a) meet and confer in person or by telephone regarding any discovery dispute, and (b) if the meet and confer is unsuccessful, participate in a further meet and confer with the Court in the form of an informal discovery conference with the Court (see the Courtroom Information for Dept. 50), the Court orders Plaintiff and Defendants to meet and confer regarding the PMK deposition in person or via telephone, within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties are still unable to resolve the discovery issues, the Court orders the parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), pursuant to the Court’s power to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(8).)

Should an IDC be necessary, lead or other designated counsel for the parties with full authority are ordered to participate in person in the IDC. After consulting with opposing counsel regarding available dates, Plaintiff must make a prompt reservation for the IDC using the Court’s online reservation system. Plaintiff must file Dept. 50’s one-page IDC form in the department seven days prior to the IDC, and the responding parties may file the same form in the department setting forth a response three days prior to the IDC.¿ 

Further, should an IDC be necessary, Plaintiff must use the Court’s online reservation system to continue the instant motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date once Plaintiff has confirmed an IDC date. The parties are ordered to have with them whatever materials are needed to make the IDC session productive and successful. Prior to the IDC date, lead or other designated counsel for the parties, with full authority, are to meet and confer, in person or via telephone in a further attempt to resolve as many of the issues as possible before the IDC. (See CRC Rule 3.670(f)(2).) If the parties resolve their discovery dispute before the IDC date, Plaintiff is ordered to take both the IDC and the motion off calendar as soon as possible.¿ If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute during their meet and confer or at the IDC, the Court will set a new date for a motion to compel.

Lastly, the Court notes that it did not receive courtesy copies of either the moving papers or Defendants’ response to the motion. In the future, the parties must provide courtesy copies to Dept. 50 at least five court days prior to the hearing.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order.¿ 

DATED:  July 10, 2023                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court