Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV33693, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33693    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 19, 2023                TRIAL DATE: June 4, 2024

CASE:                         Stacia McClung v. Future Alloys, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV33693

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Future Alloys, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Stacia McClung

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and wage and hour violations that was filed on October 17, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to severe, pervasive sexual harassment while employed by Future Alloys Inc and was intentionally underpaid during her employment.

Defendant moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 43 propounded to Plaintiff, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide a verified, code-compliant response without objections to Special Interrogatory No. 43 within 10 days of this order.

            Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 43 propounded to Plaintiff, and for sanctions.

//

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timing:

            A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

            Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff via email on April 24, 2023. (Declaration of Frank Magnanimo ISO Mot ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were served on May 26, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4 Exh. B.) During their meet and confer correspondence, the parties agreed to an extension of the deadline to file this motion. (Exhs. D-E.) At an Informal Discovery Conference before the Court on October 26, 2023, the parties agreed to a further extension of the deadline to serve and file this motion to November 9, 2023. (Exh. F.) This motion was served and filed on November 8, 2023 (POS). The motion is therefore timely.  

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300 (b)(1).)

Defendant’s counsel states that the parties exchanged multiple meet-and-confer letters between June 15 and June 21, 2023. (Magnanimo Decl. Exhs. C-E.) The parties also attended an Informal Discovery Conference on October 26, 2023, but failed to resolve this dispute. (Magnanimo Decl. ¶ 8.) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligation.

//

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) a statement on the Alcoholics Anonymous website; (2) that Alcoholics Anonymous is an anonymous program; and (3) that Alcoholics Anonymous attendees are not required to provide their full name or contact information to attend meetings. Although Plaintiff cites Evidence Code section 451(f) and 452(g) and (h) Plaintiff offers no explanation for the application of those provisions or why these matters are properly subject to judicial notice. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

Analysis

            Defendant moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 43 propounded to Plaintiff.

            Defendant served its Special Interrogatories (Set Two) via email on April 24, 2023. (Magnanimo Decl. ¶ 3 Exh. A.) Interrogatory No. 43 requests the contact information of an individual named Juliette Campbell, including her phone number, address, and email. (Id. No. 43.) Plaintiff objected to this request as violating Plaintiff’s right to privacy and infringing on third-party privacy rights, and that it was overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Magnanimo Decl. Exh. B. No. 43.)

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Defendant claims that Plaintiff stated in a deposition that she discussed the sexual harassment and wage issues alleged in the pleadings with Ms. Campbell. Defendant is therefore seeking Ms. Campbell’s contact information as a potential witness. “The disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery.” (People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 414, 443.)

            Plaintiff, in opposition, argues that the interrogatory violates both Plaintiff and Ms. Cambell’s privacy because they met in an Alcoholics Anonymous program. (Declaration of Christopher Jevesevar ISO Opp. Exh. 1.) According to Plaintiff, disclosure of the witness’s contact information is protected under the California Constitution.

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 disclosure may serve. (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, 859-62.)

Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff and Ms. Campbell’s involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous is a legally-protected privacy interest because substance abuse treatment records are encompassed within privacy protections in medical records. (See Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1012; Carlton v. Superior Court (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d. 282, 293.) Both of Plaintiff’s cited authorities concern disclosure of treatment records from medical facilities. (Id.) Whatever the virtues of the program, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a medical facility. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that disclosure of alcohol treatment history is disapproved of by the Court of Appeals, citing one unpublished appellate opinion, is irrelevant. Defendant is not seeking disclosure of Plaintiff’s alcohol treatment history, nor Ms. Campbell’s. Defendant is seeking disclosure of the contact information of a person with whom it believes Plaintiff discussed the events that are central to this case. Plaintiff cites no authority standing for the position that there is a legally protected privacy interest in the contact information of a person simply because she attends such a program. Plaintiff has therefore failed to justify her privacy objections.

            Plaintiff’s opposition makes no attempt to address the remainder of her objections. The Court therefore finds these objections to be without merit. Defendant is therefore entitled to an order compelling a further response.

Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,062.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.

Here, Defendant requests $2,062 in sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, based on 4.5 hours of attorney time actually billed at a rate of $275.00, plus 1.5 anticipated hours at a rate of $550.00 per hour. (Magnanimo Decl. ¶ 9.) The Court observes that the requested hours would add up to $2,112.50, not the $2,062 sought. Further, Defendant’s counsel does not identify the attorneys who billed the time, nor does he testify to their skills and experience so as to justify the fees sought. (Magnanimo Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant has thus failed to show that the expenses incurred are reasonable. The Court therefore finds that the imposition of sanctions in these circumstances would be unjust.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide a verified, code-compliant response without objections to Special Interrogatory No. 43 within 10 days of this order.

            Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  December 19, 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.