Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV03763, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03763    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: 45

ELIZABETH ANN BERSCHE v. SBE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, et al.

motionS to compel discovery responses

Date of Hearing:        May 30, 2025                                     Trial Date:       N/A

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV03763

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Bersche

Responding Party:     Defendant Spoonful Management, LLC

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Buccat Decl.)

BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Bersche filed a complaint against Defendants SBE Entertainment Group, LLC, Spoonful Management, LLC and San Vicente Management, LLC for various violations of Government Code section 12940 and 12945.5 as well as Labor Code violations and wrongful termination.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Elizabeth Bersche’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is MOOT

Plaintiff Elizabeth Bersche’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is MOOT

Plaintiff Elizabeth Bersche’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One Admitted is MOOT

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Elizabeth Bersche moves the court for an order deeming the truth of those matters in the Request for Admission, Set One served on Defendant Spoonful management, LLC admitted as well as for an order compelling Defendant Spoonful Management, LLC to provide further responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One. Plaintiff also moves for sanctions against Defendant and their counsel of record, jointly and severally.

Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant Spoonful Management, LLC to provide further responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Bersche’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds Defendant failed to provide substantive responses.

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (CCP § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)

Defendant has objected to each of the RFPs on various grounds, most importantly on the grounds “they are subject to a binding arbitration agreement between the Parties and Responding Party intends to compel arbitration in this matter.” Plaintiff argues Defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration on the grounds Defendants have failed to compel arbitration in the nearly fifteen months since Plaintiff filed her complaint. Defendants have at the very least been aware of both the alleged arbitration agreement and of this litigation since June 2024; however, months have passed and coming to the reasonable conclusion that Defendants did not actually intend to move to compel arbitration, Plaintiff propounded discovery.

In opposition, Defendant argues since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendant has expressed its intention to arbitrate. Specifically, on August 9, 2024, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel informing him about the existence of the Agreement and inquiring about the possibility of stipulating to arbitration. Plaintiff refused to stipulate and contested the validity of the agreement. (Burgos Decl. ¶2, Exh. 1.) Defendant proposed mediation before compelling arbitration, informally staying discovery, and an informal exchange of documents prior to mediating the claim to provide Plaintiff with all of the necessary information prior mediation. (Burgos Decl. ¶3.) However, on February 10, 2025, Plaintiff served discovery at issue. (Burgos Decl. ¶4.) Defendant sought an extension and in response, Plaintiff’s Counsel stated that he would only grant such extension if Defendant provided substantive responses. (Burgos Decl. ¶5.) Defense counsel proposed again mediation before compelling arbitration and staying discovery. (Burgos Decl. ¶5, Exh. 2.) Due to Plaintiff’s failure to agree to said extension, Defendant was forced to serve objections in order to preserve their right to arbitrate. (Burgos Decl. ¶6.) Currently, however, the parties have scheduled arbitration and Plaintiff’s Counsel’s assurance that they would not use Defendant’s responses as grounds to argue that arbitration has been waived, Defendant will provide all relevant and non-privileged information responsive to the requests. (Burgos Decl. ¶9, Exh. 4.)

No reply has been filed. If the parties confirm at the hearing that Defendant has now provided code-compliant responses plus production, the motion is MOOT. The court notes if code-compliant responses or production of documents have not been produced, Defendant is ordered to provide responses within 20 days of the hearing. Objecting on grounds the lawsuit is subject to arbitration is not a proper objection.

Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $5,600.00. The court GRANTS the request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,975.00.

Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Bersche moves the court for an order compelling Defendant Spoonful Management LLC to provide further responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff also moves for sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel.

Both parties make the same arguments as above. In addition, Defendant argues the issuance of sixty-seven special interrogatories, without a declaration explaining their necessity, is harassing. Regardless, Defendant is willing to supplement said responses based on Plaintiff’s assertion that doing so will not constitute a waiver of arbitration.

Based on the foregoing, if the parties confirm at the hearing that Defendant has now provided code-compliant responses, the motion is MOOT. The court notes if code-compliant responses have not been produced, Defendant is ordered to provide responses within 20 days of the hearing. The court notes Plaintiff did provide a declaration for additional discovery along with their special interrogatories.

As for sanctions, the court GRANTS the request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $850.00.

Request for Admissions

Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Bersche moves the court for an order deeming the truth of those matters in Request for Admission, Set One served on Defendant Spoonful Management, LLC admitted and conclusively established, and for an award of monetary sanctions.

Again, both parties make the same arguments as above. If the parties confirm at the hearing that Defendant has now provided code-compliant responses, the motion is MOOT. The court notes if code-compliant responses have not been produced, Defendant is ordered to provide responses within 20 days of the hearing.

As for sanctions, the court GRANTS the request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $850.00.