Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV01474, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

On February 6, 2025, Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Maari Sibley filed a motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

The Court STRIKES Defendants’ separate statement (filed February 6, 2025), Plaintiff’s response to separate statement (filed April 8, 2025), and Defendants’ “Objections and Responses” to Plaintiff’s separate statement (filed April 17, 2025).

“Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for [summary adjudication] and summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are undisputed.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335 (United Community Church).) “The separate statement ‘provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on the truly disputed facts.’ [Citation.]” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (Nazir).) “[I]t is no answer to say the facts set out in the supporting evidence and memorandum of points and authorities are sufficient. ‘Such an argument does not aid the trial court at all since it then has to cull through often discursive argument to determine what is admitted, what is contested, and where the evidence on each side of the issue is located.’” (United Community Church, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 335.) “The due process aspect of the separate statement requirement is self-evident—to inform the opposing party of the evidence to be disputed to defeat the motion.” (Id. at p. 337.)

“The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(2).) The parties should not “include in the separate statement every fact they intend to include in their motion, regardless of its materiality.” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 875 (Beltran).) “The paragraphs in a separate statement should be limited to facts that address the elements of a cause of action or an affirmative defense. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1); rule 3.1350(a)(2), (d)(2).) The statute and Rules of Court do not preclude litigants from including background, nonmaterial information in their papers as long as they include a cite to the evidence, but nonmaterial facts should not be included in the separate statement. The point of the separate statement is not to craft a narrative, but to be a concise list of the material facts and the evidence that supports them.” (Ibid.) “[A] document that was intended to be helpful to the court and provide due process to the parties [citation] is, in many cases, no longer serving either purpose.” (Id. at p. 874.)

The separate statement here does not serve its intended purpose. Plaintiff’s responsive separate statement is 184 pages long, containing Defendants’ 116 “undisputed material facts” (“UMF”) and Plaintiff’s 106 “additional material facts” (“AMF”). It still is not clear to the Court what material facts could be undisputed or disputed. The parties frequently set forth evidentiary facts rather than ultimate facts, which bury the actual undisputed (or disputed) issues.

Some of Defendants’ purported “undisputed facts” are not facts that are material to the motion. For example, UMF 16 states, “Plaintiff directed his anger and volatile behavior towards Ms. Catalano because he had to travel from his residence in Thousand Oaks to Beverly Hills to see HCPs, and Ms. Catalano objected to limiting her sales calls to only the west-side of Los Angeles to accommodate Plaintiff.” UMF 17 states, “Plaintiff’s behavior caused Ms. Catalano to feel upset, unsafe, to lose sleep, given that Plaintiff would get angry very quickly, had access to her home address, and is a large man with a deep voice.” This information may be relevant background information about why Defendant investigated Plaintiff and ultimately discovered falsified sales calls (see Motion at pp. 3-7), but these are not material facts. UMF 15 begins, “Ms. Catalano testified,” and UMFs 25 and 33 begin, “Ms. Sibley testified.” (See also UMFs 34, 77.) What a party said or perceived is not a “material fact”; rather, it is evidence of a fact. (Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 106 (Reeves).) UMFs 69-70, 79-80, 82 summarize Plaintiff’s allegations.

Some of Plaintiff’s additional facts are also immaterial to the motion. AMF states, “Notably, Plaintiff’s 2018 End of Year Review stated Plaintiff had ‘another excellent year’ and called him ‘a leader in his territory and the district.’” AMF 11 states, “17.5% was a favorable performance number for the company.” AMF 55 states, “The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes.” AMF 106 states, “Dawn Ceasar signed the written verifications on behalf of Defendant AstraZeneca.” AMF 67 states, “Between 2021 and 2023, its estimate that AstraZeneca considered around 600 religious accommodation requests under this system, although that number may be as high as 800.” AMF 68 states, “At first, an employee had to click a box indicating they were not vaccinated to request a religious accommodation.”

These examples are not “facts that address the elements of a cause of action or an affirmative defense.” (Beltran, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 875.) Additionally, there is no provision in the summary judgment statute for Defendants’ reply separate statement. (Nazir, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 252.)

“[T]rial courts have the inherent power to strike proposed ‘undisputed facts’ that fail to comply with the statutory requirements and that are formulated so as to impede rather than aid an orderly determination whether the case presents triable material issues of fact. If such an order leaves the required separate statement insufficient to support the motion, the court is justified in denying the motion on that basis.” (Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 106.)

Accordingly, the Court will strike the non-compliant separate statements. Instead of denying the motion on this basis, the Court will permit the filing of an amended separate statement.

The separate statements must be revised to include only material facts pertinent to the disposition of the motion. The parties may keep the same numbering for each fact in order to maintain accurate references within the briefing, but they must omit non-material facts. The Court expects the revised separate statements to be significantly shorter and more focused.

The parties are ordered to jointly file the revised separate statements and responses no later than May 12, 2025.

The Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to May 22, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

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

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court