Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV11195, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV11195, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11195 Hearing Date: July 21, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: July 21, 2023 TRIAL DATE: October 24, 2023

CASE: Reggie Williams, et al. v. Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV11195

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Reggie Williams

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on April 1, 2022. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in extreme racial and gender discrimination and harassment against Plaintiffs and retaliated against them for complaining about their treatment.

Defendant Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas LLC moves to compel further deposition testimony from Plaintiff Reggie Williams.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from Plaintiff Reggie Williams is GRANTED to the extent described herein.

Plaintiff Williams is to appear for further deposition testimony at a time and place of Defendant’s choosing within 30 days of this order, or at any other time and place before that date mutually agreed upon by the parties.

Defendant shall limit questioning to the existence of a romantic or sexual relationship between Plaintiff Williams and Plaintiff Davis between August and October of 2021, and whether, during that time, Plaintiffs had any encounters at their place of employment or while they were on duty.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas LLC moves to compel further deposition testimony from Plaintiff Reggie Williams.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (a) states: “If a deponent fails to answer any question . . . the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer .¿.¿.¿.” “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(i).)

Timing:

A motion to compel further responses to deposition questions must be “made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).) However, the Court has the authority to relieve a party from the deadline to file. (See Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316.) Here, Defendant filed this motion on June 15, 2023, four months after the February 16, 2023 deposition of Plaintiff Williams that is at issue. (Declaration of Emily Harvin ISO Mot. ¶ 6.) This motion is therefore well past the 60-day deadline. However, at the June 1, 2023 Informal Discovery Conference in this matter, the Court issued an order that “[t]o the extent Defendant seeks to inquire about the temporal scope of any romantic and/or sexual relationship between Plaintiffs that was pursued during off hours and off the work premises, Defendant must file a motion to compel further answers on or before June 15, 2023. (June 1, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court therefore relieved Defendant from the 60-day deadline by so ordering. As the motion was filed in advance of the new Court-ordered deadline, Defendant’s motion is timely.

Meet and Confer:

Before moving to compel further deposition testimony, the parties must make a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by the motion, and the motion to compel must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing such attempts. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040; 2025.480(b).) Counsel must “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (EMC Mortg. Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1433.)

The declaration of Emily Harvin states that Attorney Harvin sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on April 3, 2023. (Harvin Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not address the substance of that letter but agreed to attend an informal discovery conference, which was held on June 1, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) The parties were not able to reach a resolution on this issue at the IDC. (Id.) The Court finds, based on this showing, that Defendant has satisfied its statutory meet and confer obligation.

Analysis

Defendant moves to compel further deposition testimony regarding the existence and nature of any romantic relationship between Plaintiff Williams and Plaintiff Davis. At Plaintiff Davis’s February 16, 2023 deposition, Defendant asked if Plaintiff had ever had a sexual relationship with Plaintiff Ronda Davis “within the workplace.” (Harvin Decl. ¶ 6; see also Separate Statement p.2:7-13.) Plaintiff answered “no,” subject to the instruction by his counsel not to answer except as to sexual conduct “within the workplace.” (Separate Statement p.2:14-24.) Plaintiff’s counsel objected on the basis that any testimony involving sexual conduct outside of the workplace was not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Id. p.2:28.)

1. Basis for Further Testimony

Defendant specifically seeks to compel further testimony on the issue of whether Plaintiffs had a sexual relationship in any capacity during their employment, and, if so, whether they had any romantic encounters that took place on their employer’s property, or on company time. (Separate Statement p. 5:7:11.) Defendant states that it is willing to limit the scope of the request to the three-month period between August and October 2021. (Id. p.8:1-2.) Defendant also expressly states that it is not seeking testimony regarding the specifics of any romantic encounters between Plaintiffs beyond the information expressly identified, nor regarding any relationships with other parties. (Id. p.8:4-9.)

Defendant contends that this testimony is necessary because it is either directly relevant to the issues in this case or may lead to admissible evidence concerning the issues in this case. Defendant’s principal argument is that this testimony goes directly to Plaintiffs’ claims that the claimed basis for their termination of sexual misconduct (see Declaration of Jessica Zavala ISO Mot. ¶ 7), was pretextual. (Complaint ¶¶ 28-29.) Defendant also contends that this information is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims in deposition that Defendant pressured them to admit that Plaintiff Williams had pressured Plaintiff Davis or otherwise forced himself on her. (Harvin Decl. Exh. A. pp. 91:15-92:8; 107:8-16; Exh. D. 252:16-256:1.)

Defendant also offers other, less persuasive arguments for why this testimony should be compelled. Defendant asserts that this information is relevant to Plaintiff Davis’s claim that she was harassed by co-workers spreading false rumors that she engaged in sexual relationships with other co-workers, and that it is relevant to Plaintiffs’ emotional state for the purpose of their emotional distress claim. However, the Court finds these arguments less persuasive. It is not apparent to the Court, for example, how this testimony might lead to evidence concerning Plaintiffs’ emotional distress arising from stress in a romantic relationship, when the testimony sought concerns only the existence of a relationship and whether encounters took place on company property or time. Defendant has also not shown how the existence of an element of truth to the rumors alleged by Plaintiff Davis would curtail her claim of a hostile work environment. Nor has Defendant explained how this evidence is relevant for impeachment purposes. It shall suffice to say that the Court is not persuaded by these secondary arguments and will therefore only address Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s arguments concerning the pretext issue.

2. Plaintiffs’ Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiffs stand on their claim that this testimony is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, offering little more than conclusory assertions in support of their position. Plaintiffs claim that their romantic life outside of work is not relevant to the purported basis for their termination, without addressing Defendant’s contention that it is necessary to establish the scope of the relationship to determine whether any encounters occurred on company time or property. This argument is not sufficient to carry Plaintiffs’ burden to justify an objection on the basis that the testimony sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs also offer arguments concerning a privacy objection not raised in the deposition. Strictly speaking, Plaintiffs’ failure to raise a privacy objection during the deposition constitutes a waiver of this objection. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.460(b).) However, as Plaintiffs’ right to privacy is protected under the California Constitution, the Court will address the merits of this objection. (Cal. Const. Art. 1. § 1.)

In ruling on a privacy objection in the context of discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. (Id.) Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id.) The Court need not proceed to the fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not satisfied. (Id. at 555.)

If the Court reaches the fourth step, the Court must balance these competing considerations: The party seeking information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests that may be served by disclosure. (Id. at 552.) The party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Id.) Courts may not require the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a “compelling need” simply because discovery of any facially private information is sought. (Id. at 556-557.) When a privacy interest is asserted, the party seeking production must show that the information sought is directly relevant to a cause of action or a defense. (Harris v. Superior Court (Smets) (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-862.)

Plaintiffs, in their opposition, do not attempt to establish any of the three prerequisite elements under the Williams test to justify a privacy objection. Plaintiffs cite no authority establishing a protected privacy interest. Further, Plaintiffs do not endeavor to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances in this case. Nor do Plaintiffs provide any basis to conclude that the threatened intrusion is serious, especially given the limited scope of the testimony sought and the existence of the stipulated protective order in this case. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have not justified this objection.

Defendant is therefore entitled to an order compelling further deposition testimony on the existence of a sexual relationship between the Plaintiffs between August and October of 2021, and whether any romantic encounters occurred between them on company time or property during that period.

Sanctions

Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff Williams and his counsel, jointly and severally.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(j), [t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, 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. § 2025.480(j).)

Here, although Plaintiffs unsuccessfully asserted objections to this motion, it is the Court’s view that those objections, while not valid, were made with substantial justification based on the nature of the testimony sought. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions in this instance.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony from Plaintiff Reggie Williams is GRANTED to the extent described herein.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.