Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV09227, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 21STCV09227 Hearing Date: April 21, 2023 Dept: 31
PROCEEDINGS: (1) Motion TO COMPEL FURTHER rESPONSES AND
PRODUCTION OF REQUESTED ITEMS AND
(2) Motion to compel further
responses to form interrogatory no. 3.6(c)
MOVING PARTY:¿ Plaintiff Rod Linsangan
RESP.¿ PARTY:¿ Defendant Whelan Security of California, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
plaintiff’s request for
further responses to request Nos. 2-4, 8, and 15 is GRANTED.
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories No.
3.6(c)
background
On March 09,
2021, Plaintiff Rod Linsangan filed a this PAGA action against GradaWorld; and
Grada CL West Inc.; and Does 1 to 100 for:
1)
Failure to allow or pay for
meal breaks;
2)
Failure to allow or pay for
rest breaks;
3)
Failure to pay regular wages
and overtime wages;
4)
Failure to reimburse for
business expenses;
5)
Failure to provide accurate
and itemized wage statements; and
6)
Failure to pay all earned
wages on termination.
On November
10, 2021, the Court granted the parties stipulation to stay the action pending
further proceedings in two other related actions: Michael Anthony Goto v.
Whelan Security of California, Inc., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No.
CGC-20-582164 filed in January 2020 and Akim Evans v. Whelan Security of
California, Inc. dba GardaWorld Security Services, Los Angeles Superior Court,
Case No. 20STCV10973, filed in March of 2020. On May 04, 2022, the Honorable
Judge Stehanie M. Bowick deemed the Evans case unrelated to this action within
the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).
On August 26,
2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to lift the stay and allow for
limited discovery. On April 17, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to
amend the complaint to add an additional named representative.
On January
20, 2023, an IDC was held but the parties were unable to resolve their
discovery dispute.
On November
22, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses and
Production of Requested Items.
Defendant
Whelan Security of California, Inc. filed opposing papers on February 17, 2023.
On November
01, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to
Form Interrogatory No. 3.6(c).
Defendant
filed opposing papers on March 07, 2023.
Plaintiff filed a reply on April 14,
2023.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Code of Civil Procedure section
2031.310(a), parties may move for a further response to request for production
where an answer to the requests was evasive or incomplete or where an objection
is without merits or too general.¿¿“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order
compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any
of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is
incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate,
incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit
or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The
motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration under Section 2016.040[,]” which “shall
state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal
resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
A motion to compel further responses to form or specially
prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers
that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific
exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response;
or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.300(a).)¿The motion must also be accompanied by a separate statement
containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a
further response is warranted.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)¿ The
separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may
be incorporated by reference.¿ (Id., rule 3.1345(c).)¿
¿¿
Notice of the motions must be given
within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding
party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.310(c).)¿¿
¿¿
The motions must also be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b).)¿Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule (CRC) 3.1345
requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a
separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement
of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of
Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).¿
MEET AND CONFER
Per the Code of Civil
Procedure section 2016.040 states that a motion to compel further responses
must always be accompanied by a meet-and-confer-declaration demonstrating a
“reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion.”¿ (Id., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).)
The meet and confer
requirement has been met. (See e.g. Maywood Decl.)
DISCUSSION
Both parties acknowledge that when the Court lifted the stay “to permit
Plaintiff to take limited discovery to oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment.”
(Min. Or. 08/26/2022.) However, the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to amend
his complaint and add a new named representative. (Min. Or. 04/17/23.) The
Court sees no reason to limit discovery when the discovery sought is relevant
to Plaintiff’s claims.
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses and Production of Requested Items
Plaintiff seeks further responses and production of items to request Nos.
2-4, 8, and 15.
Defendant Whelan Security of
California, Inc. (“WSCI” or “Defendant”) states that it will produce further
responses to Request Nos. 2, 3, and 8, subject to a standard protective order.
Defendant objects to the rest of the
production on the basis that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the release in Akim
Evans v. Whelan Security of California, Inc., et al. (Evans) (LASC Case No.
20STCV10973).
Defendants fail to note that on May
04, 2022, the Evans court approve the settlement and issued an order
determining that the Evans matter and the present matter are not related.
Secondly, Plaintiff has been granted leave to add a new named representative
and file a First Amended Complaint.
Therefore, Defendant’s objections to
production based on the Evans settlement is meritless.
Request
No. 2
“Any and all DOCUMENTS that reflect
or record the hours worked by PLAINTIFF while he was employed by DEFENDANT,
including but not limited to payroll paycheck stubs and timesheets.”
Request
No. 3
“All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO compensation
paid to PLAINTIFF by YOU during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.”
Defendant opposes Request Nos. 2 and
3 because it seeks hour and compensation records from March 26, 2020. Defendant
asserts that Plaintiff’s claims through May 04, 2022, are barred by the Evans
settlement. Plaintiff states that access to his own time and payroll records is
relevant because it will help demonstrate whether or not Plaintiff was
reimbursed for incurred business expenses and/or accrued time worked on behalf
of Defendants after May 04, 2022, which is not covered by the Evans
Judgment. Plaintiff asserts the theory that he was directed to perform actions
for the benefit of his employer while on worker’s compensation leave and that
request Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant to show whether Defendant Plaintiff for use
of his personal cell phone and time spent performing tasks for Defendant.
The request for further responses to
Request Nos. 2 and 3 is GRANTED.
Request
No. 4
“All DOCUMENTS (including
COMMUNICATIONS) that were provided (or made available) by YOU to PLAINTIFF
during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.”
Defendant objects on the request on
the basis that the request is overbroad because it seeks “[a]ll” communications
made between Defendant and Plaintiff from March 26, 2020 to the present. Defendant
asserts it has already produced the only relevant communications to the motion
for summary judgment, which are communications related to Plaintiff’s worker’s
compensation claim, including screenshots of Plaintiff’s manager’s cell phone.
(Lee Decl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff seeks the communications to
discover which entities have a right to control Plaintiff’s work and how that
control is exerted while a worker is on worker’s compensation leave.
Since Plaintiff has articulated good
cause for the request, Plaintiff’s request for further responses to Request No.
4 is GRANTED.
Request
No. 8
“Any and all
DOCUMENTS that RELATE to DEFENDANT’S policies, practices, or procedures
regarding worker’s compensation leave which applied to PLAINTIFF during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.”
Defendant WSCI asserts that request
No. 8 is not relevant because the issue relates to the few seconds Plaintiff
spent sending medical updates to his manager about his medical leave and not
every document related to the leave itself. Defendant WSCI asserts that it has
produced responsive documents, namely its employe handbook and relevant
sections of its HR Policy Guidebook. Defendant states its amenable to producing
requests Nos. 2, 3, and 8 pursuant to a protective order. WSCI, maintains that
entry of a protective order will not waive its right to compel arbitration of
Plaintiff’s claim. (See Hall v. Nomura Securities International (1990)
219 Cal.App.3d 43, 51 [“Simple notice of
depositions or obtaining a protective order necessitated by one party's lack of
cooperation does not rise to judicial litigation on the merits, particularly in
view of respondents' express disclaimer of waiver.”].) Plaintiff takes
the position that entry of a protective order prejudices Defendant’s ability to
seek arbitration due to utilizing the legal process.
Nothing requires Plaintiff to agree
to a protective order prior to Defendant producing records. Nor would
Defendant’s request for a protective order waive the right to compel
arbitration. More importantly, just because the documents requested are
confidential, does not mean they are privileged and not discoverable. If
Defendant is concerned with protecting the confidentiality of the requested
documents, it can move for a protective order.
The Court further notes that
Defendant’s objections to request No. 8 are without merit as they are
boilerplate objections without sufficient facts to support the objection. On a
motion to compel, the responding party has the burden of establishing a valid
objection, including any claim of privilege. (See Coy v. Superior Court (1962)
58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) If a party asserts a “burdensome” objection, that party
bears the burden of “showing the quantum of work required” to respond to
discovery and articulate that burden that is being imposed on that party. (West
Pico Furniture Co. v. Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407,
417-418.)
The Court agrees that Plaintiff has
shown good cause for the information sought because the information may show if
Labor Code violations occurred after date Plaintiff was on medical leave.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request
for further responses to request No. 8.
Request
No. 15
“All DOCUMENTS (including, but not
limited to, hard copies, electronically stored documents, and/or electronic
data) relied upon and/or supporting YOUR amended responses to Form
Interrogatory 3.6.”
Defendant asserts that request No. 15
has nothing to do with the motion for summary judgment or the fact or
Plaintiff’s claims seeking payment for time spent informing his manager about
his medical issues while on leave. The Court disagrees and finds that Plaintiff can seek discovery at to whether Gardaworld
is not a judicial entity and if “GardaWorld Security Services” is a dba of WSCI
only.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for further responses to Request No.
15.
II.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s
Form Interrogatories No. 3.6(c)
Plaintiff seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 3.6(c) which
asks Defendant to identify the state and county where any fictitious business
name filings were submitted during the past 10 years. Defendant responded: “California;
various counties.”
The Court agrees that a further response is warranted. Plaintiff’s motion
is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s request for further responses to request Nos. 2-4, 8, and 15 is GRANTED.The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories No. 3.6(c)
All further responses shall be served within 10 days.
Moving party to give notice.