Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV02245, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV02245 Hearing Date: March 4, 2025 Dept: 45
TRAVIOUS IMARI HALL v. CBS STUDIOS,
INC., et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO: (1) COMPEL PLAINTIFF
TRAVIOUS IMARI HALL TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION NOS. 40, 41, AND 46; (2) COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SIGN AN AUTHORIZATION
RELEASING HIS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECORDS; AND (3) REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
Date of Hearing: March 4, 2025 Trial
Date: January 12, 2026
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV02245
Moving Party: Defendant
CBS Studios Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiff Travious Imari Hall
BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff Travious
Imari Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants CBS Studios, Inc.
(“CBS”), Yasmin Coleman (“Coleman”), and Does 1-99, inclusive, asserting the
following causes of action: (1) Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation; (2)
Labor Code section 6310 retaliation; (3) Fair Employment and Housing Act
(“FEHA”) discrimination: disparate treatment; (4) FEHA harassment: work
environment harassment; (5) FEHA retaliation; (6) FEHA failure to prevent
harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; and (7) wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy.
The Complaint alleges the following,
among other things. Beginning on or about August 24, 2021, the defendants
employed Plaintiff as a post-production assistant. (Compl., ¶ 21.) During
Plaintiff’s employment, Coleman continuously harassed, discriminated, and
retaliated against Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 22.) For example, Coleman sent
Plaintiff photographs of a gun under her bed with an accompanying text message threatening
Plaintiff with violence. (Compl., ¶ 25.) Coleman would also harass Plaintiff
based on his sexual orientation by sending him unsolicited pornography and nude
photographs. (Compl., ¶ 29.) Coleman would also daily make racist comments to
and/or about non-African-American individuals, including White, Hispanic, and
mixed-race individuals such as Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 22.) Coleman was not
accepting of anyone who was not African-American and bullied everyone who was
not or who protested against her behavior. (Compl., ¶
24.) The more Plaintiff resisted
Coleman’s behavior, the worse it became. (Compl., ¶ 25.) “Notably, Defendants’
discriminatory animus was evident all along, as Plaintiff’s supervisor, Cayla
Korven had also made discriminatory comments in the past, which Plaintiff reported
to upper management in or around August 2022. Not surprisingly, after making
the complaint, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, including by
intentionally excluding him from meetings and isolating him.” (Compl., ¶ 27.) In
or around February 2023, Plaintiff complained to Human Resources about those
wrongful acts. (Compl., ¶ 30.) Instead of taking corrective action, the
defendants terminated Plaintiff on or about May 15, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 32.)
On November 12, 2024, Defendant CBS
filed the instant motion to (1) compel Plaintiff to produce all documents responsive
to Request for Production (“RPD”), Nos. 40, 41, and 46, (2) compel Plaintiff to
sign an authorization releasing his Employment Development Department (“EDD”)
records, and (3) impose sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,645.
On February 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed
his opposition.
On February 25, 2025, CBS filed its
reply.
[Tentative] Ruling
Defendant CBS
Studios Inc.’s Defendant CBS Studios Inc.’s motion to compel is DENIED in its
entirety. Plaintiff Travious Imari Hall’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Unless
otherwise limited by order of the court …, any party may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in
that 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.)
“For
discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a
party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating
settlement.…’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless
privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible
evidence.” (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539,
1546.)
The RPDs at
issue asked Plaintiff to produce the following.
·
RPD
No. 40: All documents that evidence, refer to, or relate to any unemployment
insurance claim or petition filed or lodged by you against any person at
any time from the beginning of your employment with CBS to the present.
·
RPD
No. 41: All documents that evidence, refer to, or relate to any unemployment
insurance benefits you received at any time from the beginning of your
employment with CBS to the present.
·
RPD
No. 46: All documents that evidence, refer to, or relate to the amount or
source of income, benefits, or monies you have earned or otherwise received from
any person other than CBS, including, but not limited to, friends, relatives,
insurance, self-employment, or the government, from August 2021 to the present,
including but not limited to tax returns, payroll reports, check stubs, and IRS
W-2 and 1099 forms.
es.
Discussion
As an initial
matter, the Court notes the instant motion is a motion to compel further
responses. As shown from the parties’ papers, Plaintiff already served verified
responses to the discovery requests at issue, and Defendant is moving for an
order to compel the production of more responsive documents.
The Court
finds that CBS has satisfied the procedural requirements for motions to compel
further responses. The motion was filed on November 12, 2024, before the
parties’ agreed-upon deadline of November 14, 2024. CBS has also filed a
separate statement and a declaration attesting to meet and confer efforts as
required. Therefore, the Court will rule on the motion on its merits.
The Court
agrees with Plaintiff that to the extent CBS was seeking specific documents –
specifically, Plaintiff’s applications to the EDD, (ii) the resume he would
have posted on the CalJOBS portal, which is typically required by the EDD to
receive benefits, (iii) any jobs to which he applied through the CalJOBS
portal, or (iv) documents relating to why he received disability benefits from
the EDD (Reply, p. 1:20-23) – CBS should have propounded another set of request
for production of documents seeking those specific documents. RPDs Nos. 40, 41,
and 46 as currently worded left to Plaintiff to decide which documents are
responsive to the RPDs.
For that
reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not engage in the misuse of the
discovery process by failing to produce those specific documents, and did not waive
his objections to those specific documents.
Even if the
Court were to construe the RPDs as requesting the specific documents that CBS
is now seeking, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not waived the privilege
under the Unemployment Insurance Code.
“Unemployment
Insurance Code section 1094 [subdivision (a)] provides, with excepts not here
relevant, that ‘the information obtained in the administration of this code
shall be for the exclusive use and information of the director ... and shall
not be open to the public, nor admissible in evidence in any action or special
proceeding....’” (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721
(“Schnabel”) [quoting Crest Catering, supra, 62 Cal.2d at
pp. 276-277.) In addition, Unemployment Insurance Code “Section 2111 provides
that the information ‘is confidential and shall not be published or open to
public inspection in any manner ...’ and declares that any employee of the
department who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. ¶ (1) These
provisions manifest a clear legislative purpose to preserve the confidentiality
of information submitted to the Department of Employment.” (Crest Catering,
supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 277.)
However, the
above “privilege is not absolute.” (Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at
p. 721.)
“As explained in [one California Court of Appeal case], the privilege
is waived or does not apply in three situations: ‘(1) there is an intentional
relinquishment (Crest Catering Co. v. Superior Court (1965) 62
Cal.2d 274, 278 [42 Cal.Rptr. 110, 398 P.2d 150] ), (2) the “gravamen of [the]
lawsuit is so inconsistent with the continued assertion of the … privilege as
to compel the conclusion that the privilege has in fact been waived” (Wilson
v. Superior Court, supra, 63
Cal.App.3d at p. 830 [134 Cal.Rptr. 130] ), or (3) a public policy greater than
that of confidentiality of [the documents at issue] is involved [citation].” (Schnabel, supra, 5
Cal.4th at p. 721.)
Here, CBS has not argued that a public policy greater than that of
confidentiality of Plaintiff’s EDD records is involved, and CBS cannot
successfully make that argument. (See Schnabel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 721-722 [“Only one case has found that public
policy mandated an exception to the privilege. In [Miller v. Superior Court
(1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 145], contempt proceedings were instigated against the
petitioner for failure to pay child support. The petitioner claimed he was
unable to pay the support, but asserted the privilege against forced disclosure
of his tax returns. Relying on specific statutes that allowed public agencies
access to certain tax information, the court concluded that the ‘policy
favoring the confidentiality of tax returns must give way to the greater public
policy of enforcing child support obligations. [Citation.] The court stressed
that its ‘decision is limited to the narrow issue of the assertion of the
privilege of nondisclosure of income tax returns in the context of proceedings to
enforce child support obligations. In that context, we hold that the privilege
does not apply.’ [Citation.] ¶ The
holding of Miller v. Superior
Court, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d 145,
139 Cal.Rptr. 521, was expressly limited to its facts and has not subsequently
been extended”].)
Therefore, the question is whether Plaintiff has (1) intentionally
relinquished the privilege in his EDD records (like the defendant company in Crest
Catering), or (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is so inconsistent with the
continued assertion of the privilege as to compel the conclusion that the
privilege has been waived (like the plaintiff in Wilson).
This case is not like Wilson where the
plaintiff alleged the defendants were negligent in advising her regarding her
taxes, and then refused to produce her tax records for the years relevant to
her complaint. (See Wilson, supra, 63
Cal.App.3d at p. 831 [“Having initiated this action over her tax returns,
plaintiff cannot interdict legitimate defenses thereto by asserting a privilege
as to the very matters she has placed at issue in the litigation”].) Plaintiff
has not made any allegations concerning the EDD records in her Complaint, or
even accused CBS of advising him negligently concerning those records. Therefore,
contrary to CBS’s arguments, the Court finds that the gravamen of this lawsuit
is not inconsistent with Plaintiff’s continued assertion of the privilege like
in Wilson.
In Crest Catering, the defendant company filed a petition with the
California Supreme Court “for a writ to prohibit enforcement of [a trial court]
order [requiring the company to produce its employment tax records, arguing]
that copies of its employment tax returns filed with the Department of
Employment [were] privileged under sections 1094 and 2111 of the Unemployment
Insurance Code.” (Crest Catering,
supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 276.)
The California Supreme Court found the defendant company had
intentionally relinquished the privilege because, in the contract at issue in
that case, the defendant company agreed to “furnish all necessary information
upon demand ….” (Crest Catering, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p.
276.) “Although the [defendant company’s] employment tax returns might not be
classified as ‘necessary information’ [if] … payrolls [were] available, the
destruction of [those] payrolls left the tax returns as the only source of the
information required to be furnished by the trust agreement.” (Id. at p.
278.) Therefore, “[i]nspection of copies of the tax returns [was] clearly ‘necessary’
under [those] circumstances.” (Id. at pp. 278–279.)
The California Supreme Court also found that the defendant company in Crest
Catering had acted “‘inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right as to
induce a reasonable belief that such right has been relinquished.’ [Citation.]”
(Crest Catering, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 278.) The company
had “opened its books and records, including in one instance copies of its
employment tax returns, for audit and inspection by [the plaintiff] and made
substantial payments found to be owing as a result of those audits.” (Id. at p.
279.)
This Court notes that the documents at issue in Crest Catering
were directly relevant to the allegations in the Complaint like in Wilson.
(See Crest Catering, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 276
[“Carl Kirsten, as administrator of an Employee Welfare and Retirement Fund and
as assignee of the trustees of the fund, brought an action against Crest
Catering Company to compel payment of contributions allegedly owed to the fund
under the terms of a contract with a labor union. He alleged that in June 1957
Crest orally agreed with the union to make contributions to the fund at
specified hourly rates for each hour worked by each of its employees and to be
bound by the terms of certain trust instruments establishing the fund. He also
alleged that Crest failed to make a full and complete accounting of its
indebtedness under the contract. ¶ During
discovery proceedings, Kirsten directed interrogatories to Crest as to the
number of employees and the hours worked by each during the period in issue in
order to ascertain the correct amount due under the alleged contract. When
Crest responded that all its books and records had been destroyed by fire,
Kirsten suggested that Crest obtain the requested information from copies of
its employment tax returns. The completeness and accuracy of Crest’s answers to
several sets of interrogatories became the subject of a sharp and acrimonious
dispute. On Kirsten’s motion the court ordered Crest to produce for inspection
copies of its quarterly returns submitted to the California State Department of
Employment and to the federal agencies”].)
The Court finds that this case is distinguishable from Crest Catering
for the following reasons.
First, as discussed above, this lawsuit is not based on Plaintiff’s EDD
records.
Second, given that the RPDs did not request the specific documents CBS
is requesting, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not intentionally relinquish
the privilege by agreeing to produce responsive documents. This case is unlike Crest
Catering where the defendant company’s records had been destroyed by a
fire, and the plaintiff had no choice but to ask the company to produce
California State Department of Employment records to obtain the desired
information.
Third and finally, unlike the defendant company in Crest Catering,
(1) Plaintiff has not previously allowed CBS to view the specific documents the
defendant is now asking Plaintiff to produce, and (2) Plaintiff is now refusing
to produce those documents. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not
acted inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right as to induce a
reasonable belief that such right has been relinquished.
For those reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not waived the Unemployment
Insurance Code privilege.
Therefore, CBS’s requests for orders (1) compelling Plaintiff to serve
further responses to RPD Nos. 40, 41, and 46, (2) compelling Plaintiff to sign
his EDD authorization form, and (3) imposing sanctions on Plaintiff are DENIED.
The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against CBS.
CONCLUSION
Defendant CBS
Studios Inc.’s Motion to Compel is DENIED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s request
for sanctions is DENIED.