Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV11413, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11413    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 10, 2023, Defendant Santa Clarita Studios Corp. propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff Oscar Valle.  (Gershfeld Decl. ¶ 4.)  On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff served objections.  (Gershfeld Decl. ¶ 5.)  The parties met and conferred before Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 20-22 on July 7, 2023.  (Gershfeld Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.)

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

RFP No. 20 requests “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON in 2020 about Covid-19.”

Defendant “assumes that documents responsive to this request would involve communications from October 17, 2020 to December 31, 2020, during which time Plaintiff will have obtained his diagnoses, the severity of his condition, his prognosis, his need for an accommodation, his need for a leave of absence, and what information he sought about his rights in the workplace.”  (Motion at p. 7; see Reply at p. 4.)  But this limitation is not what Defendant requested.  Defendant acknowledges that the requested time period is longer, and “responsive documents would include information from March 4, 2020, when Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in California, to December 31, 2020, and whether (for instance) [Plaintiff] educated himself on the municipal, county, state or federal guidelines to quarantine and return to the workplace.”  (Motion at p. 7; see Reply at pp. 4-5.)  Plaintiff correctly points out that “this time period was at the height of the pandemic, and everyone was constantly talking about COVID-19 to family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, health professionals.”  (Amended Opposition at p. 7.)  As phrased, RFP No. 20 is overbroad and burdensome.  The motion is denied for RFP No. 20.

RFP No. 21 requests “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any health care provider in 2020 about Covid-19.”

Defendant contends that because Plaintiff alleges a COVID-19 diagnosis on October 21, 2020, “Defendant’s document request would encompass communications between October 17, 2020 and December 31, 2020.  In other words, only eight-five (85) days of possible communications with a health care provider after he had already been diagnosed with COVID-19.  It is hard to imagine a more reasonable and relevant request for documents.”  (Motion at p. 8.)  Defendant argues that it “has no other way of learning whether or not Plaintiff’s COVID-19 diagnosis limited any major life activities, whether or not Plaintiff had any physical effects related to his diagnosis, Plaintiff’s real-time disclosures about the physical effects (if any) of his COVID-19 diagnosis and his recovery from COVID-19, the alleged accommodations he might have needed, whether or not Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his job for Defendant, any potential witnesses with whom Plaintiff communicated about his physical condition as a result of his COVID-19 condition, whether Defendant and its employees failed to take steps necessary to prevent discrimination/retaliation, or whether Defendant and its employees refused to grant Plaintiff leave.”  But again, this is not what Defendant requested.  This request, as phrased, could include private medical records and communications from long before Plaintiff’s diagnosis and alleged disability.  As phrased, RFP No. 21 is overbroad.  The motion is denied for RFP No. 21.

RFP No. 22 requests “All DOCUMENTS which reflect any investigation YOU conducted in 2020 about Covid- 19.”

Defendant contends that it is seeking information about “whether Plaintiff undertook any investigation by consulting internet or other sources about his condition, his prognosis, his obligation to disclose his condition, his duty to quarantine and the like.”   Again, this limitation is not what Defendant requested.  Plaintiff correctly notes that this request “could conceivably encompass any phone call, any text, any Google search, any news article, and a seemingly endless and unspecified types of documents over the course of a calendar year.  During the pandemic, the whole world was seeking out news and information on COVID-19 daily or multiple times per day.”  (Amended Opposition at p. 8.)  As phrased, RFP No. 22 is overbroad and burdensome.  The motion is denied for RFP No. 22.

The motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 18th day of September 2023