Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV01736, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV01736 Hearing Date: May 27, 2025 Dept: 45
KOREAN
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CITIZENS v. ARIRANG HOUSING, INC.
plaintiff’s motion to compel
further responses and production of documents in response to plaintiff’s
request for production, set one
Date of Hearing: May
27, 2025 Trial Date: December
1, 2025
Department: 45 Case No.: 24STCV01736
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Michael Chee
Responding Party: Defendant City of Montebello
Meet and Confer: Yes.
(Wells Decl.)
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff Michael
Chee filed a complaint against the City of Montebello for whistleblower
retaliation. Plaintiff alleges Councilmember David Torres repeatedly overstepped
his bounds as a City Councilmember and when Plaintiff complained to Human
Resources and others in the City that Torres was violating the City Municipal
code, Torres and two other Councilmembers, Scarlet Peralta and Georgina Tamayo,
voted to “defund” Plaintiff’s position as the Director of Public Affairs and
Information Technology.
[Tentative] Ruling
Plaintiff Michael Chee’s Motion to
Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED in PART
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Michael Chee moves for an
order compelling Defendant City of Montebello to provide a further response and
produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One,
Nos. 21-23, 28, 29, 32, 34-36.
Under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to requests for
production of documents where a statement of compliance is incomplete or where
a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or
evasive. A motion to compel further response to requests for production
“shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery
sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)
Plaintiff Chee argues good cause exists
to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production. Plaintiff
maintains Defendant’s response to RPD No. 28 and 29 are incomplete as Defendant
fails to state whether Defendant will produce any or all responsive
documents within its possession, custody, or control as required by Code of
Civil Procedure section 2031.220. Moreover, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s
objections to RFP Nos. 21-23, 32 and 34-36 are not justified. Plaintiff argues
the requests seek relevant information including communications concerning
Plaintiff between City Councilmember David Torres, Scarlet Peralta, Georgina
Tamayo and any other person and complaints about Torres made by individuals
other than Plaintiff to the City. Plaintiff states there are no third-party
rights that justify withholding the requested documents and the attorney
client-privilege and work product doctrine does not apply.
In opposition, Defendant argues it has
already produced responsive documents where appropriate and asserted legitimate
objections to overbroad, vague, and privacy-invading requests. As for RFP No.
28 and 29, Defendant asserts it has already supplemented its response to RFP
No. 28 and is actively reviewing materials responsive to both RFP Nos. 28 and
29. Moreover, City Councilmembers have a legally protected privacy interest in
the confidentiality of their personal communications and these requests
compound the privacy violations by sweeping in confidential HR materials and
investigative files unrelated to Plaintiff. Lastly, the City has already
indicated its willingness to produce the investigation report once the
protective order is in place. The City will also produce a privilege log once
review is completed.
The court agrees that plaintiff is
entitled to further responses to requests 21-23, which seek communications by
key city personnel regarding Plaintiff Chee, whether on the individual’s work
computers or personal email, text messaging, or social media platforms. The
court understands that these requests will require extensive searches, unless
the person can confirm after conducting their own diligent search that no such
communications occurred. While the individuals
involved have a privacy interest in their personal devices, communications
about a third party (City employee Chee) with other third parties waives any
privacy interest they might have. The
relevant period for which the search must be conducted and documents produced
is January 1, 2021 to the present.
As for RFP 28 and 29, the court notes
Defendant stated it is in the process of supplementing responsive documents and
that it intends to produce the investigative report once a protective order is
in place. It is not clear whether that has occurred. It is also not clear whether defendant is
withholding documents based on a deliberative process privilege. Defendant is ordered to produce the
investigative report subject to a protective order and any related
documents. If any documents are being
withheld under the deliberative process or attorney client/ work product privileges,
those documents must be listed on a privilege log.
As for RFP 32, Defendant must submit a
privilege log for those documents that are protected by the attorney-client
privilege and work product. Otherwise, Defendant must produce the documents,
which the court finds relevant to the instant case.
As for RFP Nos. 34 – 36, the court
finds the requests, as presented, are overbroad and invasive of third-party
privacy rights, specifically the other individuals who may have made such
complaints. The court finds that the
requests should be limited as follows: complaints alleging Torres engaged in
retaliation against an employee or independent contractor from January 1, 2021
to the present. The information is to be
produced subject to a protective order.
If the parties have not been able to agree on a protective order, they
must execute the sample order available on the court’s website within 5 days of
this order. The court finds the request
for all documents relating to any such complaint, including investigative
materials, to be overbroad at this time.
If any complaints are disclosed and appear related or relevant to the instant
suit, plaintiff can propound further requests for additional documents.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Michael Chee’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents in Response to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED in PART