Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV06750, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV06750, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06750 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 21, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Troy Williams v. Ralphs Grocery Co., et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV06750

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (x8); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Ralphs Grocery Co., The Kroger Company, and Kirk Reynolds

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Troy Williams

CASE HISTORY:

· 03/18/24: Complaint filed.

· 08/23/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for defamation and unfair business practices. Plaintiff was terminated in December 2010 for allegedly stealing six bottles of lemonade. In 2012, Plaintiff filed the action Willams v. Ralphs Grocery Co. LASC Case No. BC495977, which concluded with a jury verdict in Plaintiff’s favor, with judgment entered on January 11, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that, during the pendency of that proceeding, Defendants continued to defame him by communicating to others that he was a thief.

Defendants move for protective orders as to (1) three identical sets of special interrogatories; (2) three identical sets of requests for production; and (3) two deposition notices. Defendants also request sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motions for Protective Orders Regarding Special Interrogatories are GRANTED IN PART with respect to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 and 8 through 11. Defendants shall not be required to respond to those interrogatories.

Defendants’ Motions for Protective Orders Regarding Requests for Production are GRANTED IN PART with respect to Requests Nos. 1 through 7 and 23 through 27. Defendants shall not be required to respond to those requests.

Defendants’ Motions for Protective Orders are GRANTED IN PART as to the Depositions of Ralphs’ Person Most Knowledgeable and as to Defendant Reynolds as described herein.

Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motions for Protective Orders (Special Interrogatories)

Defendants move for protective orders as to identical sets of special interrogatories propounded to each of the three Defendants.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090 provides, in relevant part:

(a) When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered.

(2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.

(3) That the time specified in Section 2030.260 to respond to the set of interrogatories, or to particular interrogatories in the set, be extended.

(4) That the response be made only on specified terms and conditions.

(5) That the method of discovery be an oral deposition instead of interrogatories to a party.

(6) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a certain way.

(7) That some or all of the answers to interrogatories be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090(a)-(b).)

Meet and Confer

In connection with filing a motion for a protective order, Defendants must file a declaration stating their efforts to meet and confer with the opposing party to resolve this dispute, 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; 2030.090(a).)

The Omnibus Declaration of Joshua Waldman in support of Defendants’ Motions states that the parties exchanged email correspondence between October 10 and 15, 2024, but were unable to resolve this dispute. (Declaration of Joshua Waldman ISO Mot. ¶¶ 8-9; Exh. 5.) Defendants have satisfied their statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Complaint in the action Williams v. The Kroger Co. LASC Case No. BC495977 (the “Prior Action,”); (2) the January 11, 2024 Judgment in the Prior Action; (3) the Complaint in this action; (4) the Court’s October 7, 2024 Ruling on the Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint; and (5) an excerpt of the September 7, 2023 trial transcript in the Prior Action. Defendants’ requests are GRANTED based on Evidence Code § 452(d) (court records).

Separate Statements

Plaintiff objects to these motions as not including a Separate Statement. This objection is misplaced. No separate statement is required in the Code of Civil Procedure nor the Rules of Court for motions of this nature. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090; Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.1345.)

Analysis

Defendants move for protective orders as to identical sets of 20 special interrogatories propounded to each of the three Defendants in this action. Defendants seek to be released from the obligation to answer some or all the interrogatories.

Plaintiff propounded identical sets of 20 special interrogatories to Defendants Ralph’s, Kroger, and Reynolds on August 13, 2024. (Waldman Decl. Exh. 1.) Interrogatories Nos. 1-4 and 8-11 inquire into the circumstances and potentially knowledgeable persons regarding a redaction to Defendant Reynolds’s investigative notes concerning the accusation of theft leveled at Plaintiff which erased the phrase “a thief” from those notes. (Waldman Decl. Exh. 1 Nos. 1-4; 8-11.) Interrogatory No. 5 asks when the notes were drafted. (Id. No. 5.) Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7, 12, and 16 through 20 ask Defendants to identify any individuals to whom either version of the notes were disseminated. (Id. Nos. 6-7, 12, 16-20.) Interrogatory No. 13 asks Defendants to explain the reference to “Michael” found in the notes, and Nos. 14 and 15 ask Defendants to explain the reference to “A Thief.” (Id. Nos. 13-15.)

Defendants contend that these interrogatories are improper in light of the Court’s October 7, 2024 Ruling on the Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. In that ruling, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s claims for defamation were barred by the doctrine of res judicata to the extent they were premised on publications made before the September 18, 2023 jury verdict in the prior action. (October 7, 2024 Minute Order.) The Court did not sustain the demurrer as to those causes of action, however, because Plaintiff had also alleged, in general terms, subsequent publications asserting that Plaintiff was terminated for theft which post-dated that verdict. (Id.) Defendants argue that, based on the Court’s ruling, any inquiry into matters predating the jury verdict is wholly irrelevant and merely intended to harass Defendants.

Defendants’ argument overstates their case. Although Plaintiff’s argument in opposition is couched in terms of “pre-verdict publications,” which are not themselves relevant, Plaintiff is correct that discovery about the handling of Defendant Reynolds’s investigative notes, as touched upon by Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7, 12, 13, and 16 through 20 is reasonably calculated to lead to the discloser of admissible evidence regarding any post-verdict publications may have been made. Moreover, the intended meaning of those notes, as sought in Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15, are facially relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the age of the notes notwithstanding. That said, Defendants are correct that the redaction of the notes is not relevant to this action. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, both in opposition to this motion and in previous oppositions, the suppression of evidence is intrinsic fraud, which does not undermine the preclusive effect of a judgment, because it does not deprive the party of the opportunity to appear and present the case. (Eichman v. Fotomat Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1175-76.) Thus, any publications made before the jury’s September 18, 2023 verdict, suppressed or not, cannot serve as a basis for Plaintiff’s claims in this action. To the extent that inquiry into the redaction of the notes might unearth other concealed publications following the verdict, that concern is adequately addressed by the broader investigation into the handling of the notes that is the subject of the remaining interrogatories. Plaintiff’s sweeping assertions that evidence about the redaction is relevant to the credibility of witnesses does not persuade the Court to deviate from this perspective.

The Court therefore finds good cause for a protective order that Defendants are not required to respond to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 and 8 through 11.

Sanctions

Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,800 in connection with all eight motions for protective orders.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090 subdivision (d) states that the 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 for a protective order under this section, 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. § 2030.090(d).)

Here, as neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have wholly prevailed on the motions for protective orders with respect to the special interrogatories, the Court finds that sanctions are not justified in this context.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions for Protective Orders Regarding Special Interrogatories are GRANTED IN PART with respect to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 and 8 through 11. Defendants shall not be required to respond to those interrogatories.

Motions for Protective Orders (Requests for Production)

Defendants also move for protective orders with respect to identical sets of 28 requests for production propounded to each of the three Defendants.

Legal Standard

Civil Procedure section 2031.060 provides, in relevant part:

(a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(1) That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be produced or made available at all.

(2) That the time specified in Section 2030.260 to respond to the set of demands, or to a particular item or category in the set, be extended.

(3) That the place of production be other than that specified in the demand.

(4) That the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions.

(5) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only in a specified way.

(6) That the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060(a)-(b).)

Meet and Confer

In connection with filing a motion for a protective order, Defendants must file a declaration stating its efforts to meet and confer with the opposing party to resolve this dispute, 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; 2031.060(a).)

The Omnibus Declaration of Joshua Waldman in support of Defendants’ Motions states that the parties exchanged email correspondence between October 10, 2024 and October 15, 2024, but were unable to resolve this dispute. (Declaration of Joshua Waldman ISO Mot. ¶¶ 8-9; Exh. 5.) Defendants have satisfied their statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Analysis

Defendants move for protective orders as to identical sets of 28 requests for production propounded to each of the three Defendants in this action. Defendants seek to be released from the obligation to answer some or all of the requests.

Plaintiff propounded identical sets of 28 requests for production to Defendants Ralph’s, Kroger, and Reynolds on August 13, 2024. (Waldman Decl. Exh. 2.) Requests Nos. 1 through 7 seek various documents pertaining to the redaction of the phrase “A Thief” from Defendant Reynolds’s investigative notes. (Waldman Decl. Exh. 2. Nos. 1-7.) Requests Nos. 8 through 10 seek documents pertaining to that phrase more generally. (Id. Nos. 8-10.) Requests Nos. 11 through 13 seek documents pertaining to the dissemination of Defendant Reynolds’s notes. (Id. Nos. 11-13.) Similarly, Requests Nos. 15 and 16 seek documents reflecting the individuals who maintained possession of both the unredacted and redacted notes. (Id. Nos. 15-16.) Requests Nos. 14 and 17 through 21 seek documents pertaining to correspondence between Defendant Reynolds and Michael Straeter relating to Plaintiff, either in the context of the accusation of theft (No. 14) or generally between November 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. (Nos. 17-21.) Request No. 22 seeks any documents serving as the basis for the characterization of “A Thief” reflected in the unredacted notes. (Id. No. 22.) Requests Nos. 23 through 26 seek documents pertaining to any retraction of any accusations against Plaintiff of thievery. (Id. Nos. 23-26.) Request No. 27 seeks Defendant Reynolds’s W-2 forms from 2010 through the present. (Id. No. 27.) Finally, Request No. 28 seeks each insurance policy of Defendant Kroger which is potentially applicable to Plaintiff’s claims in this action.

Defendants seek protective orders on the grounds that the documents sought by these requests largely pertain to matters which are outside the permissible scope of this action, as reflected in the Court’s October 7, 2024 ruling. Defendants contend that Defendant Reynolds’s notes are not relevant because they pertain only to the reasonableness of Ralphs’ investigation, which was extensively and conclusively litigated in the prior action. The Court does not consider the relevance inquiry to be so narrowly constrained. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants have continued to publish defamatory statements following the September 18, 2023 jury verdict which continue to falsely accuse him of theft. The age of the records notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s inquiry into the handling of the investigative notes and related materials and correspondence bears a logical connection to those claims. Those documents might reasonably reveal—or lead to further discovery which would reveal—the extent of any new publications of defamatory accusations by these Defendants. In that context, the Court is not persuaded that Requests Nos. 8 through 22 are irrelevant, overbroad, or otherwise improper.

That said, and as addressed above in the context of the interrogatories, Defendants are correct that the redaction of the notes is not relevant to this action. Requests Nos. 1 through 7 are therefore improper, and good cause exists for a protective order as to those requests. Similarly, whether Defendants issued a retraction is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, nor is the Court persuaded that such discovery is reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence beyond that which is encompassed within the requests discussed above.

As to request No. 27, this request is facially improper. W-2 forms are subject to the taxpayer privilege. (Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-44.) Defendant Reynolds’s tax information is not at issue in this case, and none of the authorities cited by Plaintiff in opposition state a basis for abrogation of that privilege. (E.g. Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 726, 737.) To the extent that the exact employment relationship between the three Defendants remains at issue, any investigation into that matter may be conducted by other discovery methods, such as interrogatories or requests for admissions, which do not demand disclosure of privileged tax documents.

Finally, with respect to Defendant Kroger’s insurance coverage, such materials are expressly discoverable. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020.) Request No. 28 is therefore proper, and no protective order is warranted as to that request.

Sanctions

Defendants also request sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,800 in connection with all eight motions for protective orders.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060 subdivision (d) states that the 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 for a protective order under this section, 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. § 2031.060(d).)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions for Protective Orders Regarding Requests for Production are GRANTED IN PART with respect to Requests Nos. 1 through 7 and 23 through 27. Defendants shall not be required to respond to those requests.

Motions for Protective Orders (Depositions)

Defendants also seek protective orders limiting or outright prohibiting the deposition of (1) the corporate Defendants’ person most knowledgeable, and (2) Defendant Reynolds.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 authorizes a party, deponent, or any other affected person or entity to move for a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(a).) Subdivision (b) authorizes the Court to, for good cause shown, issue a protective order “to protect any party or other natural person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b).) A protective order under this section may include, inter alia, an order that the deposition not be taken at all, or that the scope of the examination be limited. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b)(1); (9)-(10).)

Meet and Confer

Analysis

Defendants move for protective orders to prohibit or limit the scope of any depositions of Defendant Reynolds or of the corporate Defendants’ Person Most Knowledgeable.

On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff served two notices of deposition on Defendants; one as to Defendant Ralphs’ Person Most Knowledgeable; and one as to Defendant Reynolds, individually. (Waldman Decl. Exhs. 3-4.) The Deposition Notice for the person most knowledgeable indicates that it will pertain to (1) the redaction of Defendant Reynolds’s notes, (2) the dissemination of those notes; and (3) the maintenance of the notes. (Id. Exh. 3.) Plaintiff also demands documents associated with each area of inquiry. (Id.) The Deposition Notice for Defendant Reynolds individually does not specify any areas of inquiry. (Id. Exh. 4.)

Defendants argue that these depositions should be limited or prohibited entirely because they are targeted at irrelevant matters and serve merely to subject Defendants to unwarranted annoyance, burden, and expense. As discussed above, the Court finds that the redaction of Defendant Reynolds’s notes is wholly irrelevant to this action and is therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. However, the dissemination and handling of those notes is facially relevant to whether any recent publications were made which included or were based upon the notes. The Court therefore finds that protective orders are warranted limiting the scope of these depositions to exclude specifics of the circumstances surrounding the redaction of Defendant Reynolds’ notes.

Sanctions

Defendants also request sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,800 in connection with all eight motions for protective orders.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 subdivision (h) states that the 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 for a protective order under this section, 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. § 2025.420(h).)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions for Protective Orders are GRANTED IN PART as to the Depositions of Ralphs’ Person Most Knowledgeable and as to Defendant Reynolds as described herein.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons explained above, Defendants’ Motions for Protective Orders Regarding Special Interrogatories are GRANTED IN PART with respect to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 and 8 through 11. Defendants shall not be required to respond to those interrogatories.

Defendants’ Motions for Protective Orders are GRANTED IN PART as to the Depositions of Ralphs’ Person Most Knowledgeable and as to Defendant Reynolds as described herein.

Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2025 ___________________________________

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.