Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2019-00024579-CU-OE-CTL 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2019-00024579-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 02, 2023

10/06/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2019-00024579-CU-OE-CTL BARBOZA VS MISSION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 09/11/2023

Tentative Rulings on Discovery Disputes

Barboza v. MFCU, Case No. 2019-24579 Oct. 6, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

Because this wage and hour case is about 1600 days old, the court refers the reader to ROA 274 and ROA 286 for further background.

Presently before the court are several discovery disputes. ROA 311, 333-336. These disputes first came to light at an ex parte hearing on July 13, 2023 (ROA 315), and they have caused a motion for summary judgment and the trial date to come off calendar. Four of the motions have been brought by defendant (ROA 317-336); one has been brought by plaintiff Huerta (311, 344-348). The court has reviewed the moving papers, as well as the opposition and reply briefing (ROA 349-366).

The case is also set for a CMC in the Huerta matter. ROA 314.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'Among the myriad purposes of the civil discovery statutes is to safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.

B. 'A central purpose of the Discovery Act was to keep the trial courts out of the business of refereeing day-to-day discovery by requiring parties to conduct discovery and resolve disputes with minimal judicial involvement.' Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253-54. The court's determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion. Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431. Among the factors the court should consider are the history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3021808 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BARBOZA VS MISSION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION [IMAGED] 37-2019-00024579-CU-OE-CTL of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, and the prospects for success. Id. A trial judge's perceptions on such matters, inherently factual in nature at least in part, must not be lightly disturbed. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.

C. There are two statutes that concern themselves with motions to compel in the context of document requests. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 permits a party to move to compel a further response to an inspection demand when: (1) the responding party's response is incomplete, (2) a claim that the responding party cannot comply is defective, or (3) an objection is defective. Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 deals with situations where the responding party files a response to an inspection demand and then fails to permit the inspection.

D. Answers to interrogatories must be complete and responsive. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. After receiving a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move to compel a further response if an answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or not sufficiently specific, or an objection to an interrogatory is meritless or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a). 'While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.

E. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction – such as Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), and 2031.320(b) – the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). However, in awarding sanctions, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

F. 'Ordinarily, discovery disputes are resolved by the trial court[.]' Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 620. However, under Code of Civil Procedure section 639(a)(5), a trial court is permitted to appoint a referee to 'hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes...and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.' In considering the appointment of a discovery referee, the court must consider section 639(a)(5) as well as CRC 3.922. Such appointments may not be made routinely.

See Jovine v. FHP, Inc. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1532.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

The parties are ordered to show cause, if any there be, why discovery disputes in this case (including those calendared for today) should not be referred to a discovery referee. This OSC will be heard October 6, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., which is why this tentative ruling is being published early. In ordering the parties to show cause why a discovery referee should not be appointed under CCP section 639(a)(5), the court provisionally makes the following observations and findings pursuant to CRC 3.922 and provisionally orders as follows: A. It is clear to the court from the number and content of the motions already decided and brought and likely to be brought that little progress can be made in this case without continuous oversight. Further, it seems clear to the court that the pending motions are only the most recent salvo in a fusillade of discovery disputes.

B. The superior courts of California have in recent years faced unprecedented budget pressures which have already forced curtailments in hiring and business office hours, furloughs, as well as courtroom closures. Judicial caseloads increased, since the undersigned was assigned to Dept. 72, from just over 600 to well over 1100. Meanwhile, clerical support has diminished substantially. This translates into a situation in which the court is not in a position to provide the kind of intensive oversight and particularized review necessary in this case and still pay appropriate attention to the other cases assigned to Dept. 72. Further, Dept. 72 will be taken over by a new judge later this month, and it is Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3021808 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BARBOZA VS MISSION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION [IMAGED] 37-2019-00024579-CU-OE-CTL unlikely this new judge will have the time to supervise discovery in this case while getting up to speed on the 1100 other cases assigned to the department.

C. Since taking over Dept. 72 in October of 2008, this is one of a handful of cases (one or two per year on average; five or six so far this year) in which the court has appointed a discovery referee on its own motion. This case is therefore not similar to the situation described in Jovine, supra.

D. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the parties equally bear the cost of the discovery referee. This order will apply unless and until the referee recommends, and the court orders, a different allocation. Based on its review of the papers, the court finds that the parties have the ability to pay.

E. The court finds the circumstances exceptional and orders that all current and future discovery disputes shall be determined by the discovery referee in the first instance.

F. Defense counsel must submit Judicial Council form ADR-110, completed as set forth above and including either the name of the Referee agreed upon by the parties or with the name left blank. If the latter, the form shall be submitted at the same time as the six names of proposed discovery referees proposed by the parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3021808