Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235)
1 SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C.
1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4
2 Chico, CA 95928
Telephone: (530) 809-1851 FILEDmy/DORSED
3
Facsimile: (530) 592-3865
Email: psavesq(^gmail.com
4 OCT - 8 2020
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs,
JAY ROBINSON and Bye. Chapo. Deputy Clerk
6 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
JAY ROBINSON and
HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of Case No. 34-2019-00262942
11
all others similarly situated.
12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
13
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND MOTION
14
FOR SANCTIONS
15
ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL Filed concurrently herewith: Separate Statement
16
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a of Items in Dispute; and Declaration of Patricia
Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & A. Savage
17
JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation,
18 and DOES 1-10, Hearing Date: 11/5/2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 Dept.: 54
Defendants. Reservation Number: 2533804
20
21
Action Filed: 08/16/2019
22
23
TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
24
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon as the matter
25
may be heard in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9*
26
Street, Sacramento, Califomia 95814, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting its
27
28
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff s Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
1 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production, Set One propounded
2 to ASOMEO Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC and request for monetary sanctions.
3 Plaintiffbrings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, on the
4 grounds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded discovery are incomplete, evasive,
5 and Defendant's objections are made without merit.
6 This Motion will be based on PlaintifPs Notice of Motion and Motion, Plaintiffs
7 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of
8 Items in Dispute, the Declaration of Patricia A. Savage, as well as the pleadings and records on
9 file in this action.
10 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this
11 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings for
12 the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online
13 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local
14 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the
15 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00
16 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
17
18 Date: October 7, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
19
20
21
Patricia AT Savage
22 Attorney for Plaintiff
Jay Robinson
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
1
2
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 L STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 On or about April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served onto Defendant ASOMEO Environmental
6 Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") its Request for Production, Set One. See, EXHIBIT A, PAS
7 decl. On or about April 21, 2020, Defendant's Counsel requested a four-week extension, or until
8 June 4, 2020, to provide discovery responses. Plaintiff agreed to the extension. See, EXHIBIT B,
9 PAS decl. On or about June 1, 2020, Defendant's counsel requested an additional four-week
10 extension. Plaintiff agreed to grant a limited two-week extension. See, EXHIBIT C, PAS decl.
11 Defendant provided discovery responses on or about June 18, 2020. See, EXHIBIT D, PAS decl.
12 On or about June 22, 2020, Plaintiff met and conferred by electronic correspondence regarding
13 Defendant's deficient discovery responses as they contained boiler plate objections that appeared
14 to be copied and pasted with objections that were often irrelevant and without support and
15 additionally contained no substantive responses. Plaintiff agreed to provide an additional two
16 weeks, until July 6, 2020, for Defendant to provide substantive discovery responses. See,
17 EXHIBIT E, PAS decl. The parties met and conferred again via electronic communication on
18 July 6, 2020, and Plaintiff agreed to grant Defendant's request for an additional extension of time
19 to provide discovery responses on July 10, 2020. Counsel for Defendant stated that responses had
20 been completed, but the only hold up was waiting for signed verifications from their client. See,
21 EXHIBIT F, PAS decl. On July 13, 2020 Plaintiff again met and conferred with Defendant via
22 electronic communication regarding Defendant's failure to provide responses to Plaintiffs'
23 Request for Production. Counsel for Defendant again stated that they were only waiting on
24 verifications from their client and that responses would be served soon. See, EXHIBIT G, PAS
25 decl. On August 7, 2020, Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that due
2 6 to the impact their client was experiencing due to hurricane Isaias, they were having issues with
27 communications and would continue working on responses to the propounded discovery. See,
28
1
3
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
1 EXHIBIT H, PAS decl. However, Hurricane Isaias did not make landfall of the United States
2 until August 4, 2020, weeks after Defendant stated that the only hold up was receiving
3 verifications from their client. Despite Plaintiffs multiple efforts to meet and confer, granting of
4 numerous extensions to provide substantive responses. Defendant has failed to provide amended
5 responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production, and Plaintiff has been forced to move the Court
6 for an Order compelling further responses to discovery.
7 H. L E G A L ARGUMENT
8 A. Defendant Has Failed to Produce Sufiicient Discovery Responses Pursuant to
9 the Civil Discovery Act
10 Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 states that the demanding party may move
11 for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of
12 the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A
13 representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; (3) An objection in
14 response is without merit or too general. The propounding party must bring its motion to compel
15 further responses within 45 days of the service of the response, in accordance with Code Civ.
16 Proc, §§ 2031.310, subd. (c), and must demonstrate that it complied with its obligation to meet
17 and confer.
18 Here, Plaintiff properly propounded request for production to Defendant ASOMEO
19 Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC seeking documents related to Plaintiffs employment
20 with Defendant and related policies, procedures and guidelines. The propounded discovery also
21 requests documents regarding the relationship between the Answering Party and the other named
22 Defendant in the action.
23 Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant on multiple occasions and provided several
24 extensions to Defendant to provide substantive responses to the discovery requests. Defendant has
25 failed to provide substantive responses, and has only provided objections to Plaintiffs requests for
2 6 production.
27 //
28
4
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
1 B. Defendant's Objections Are Without Merit
2 Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded request for admissions contain no
3 substantive responses - only boiler plate objections that are copy and pasted.
4 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the request is overbroad as to
5 time and scope. Plaintiffs propounded request for production contained definitions of all relevant
6 time periods that the requests ask about. The time and scope of the requests are clearly defined.
7 Every response contains an objection on the grounds that the requests are irrelevant and not
8 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In the absence of a contrary
9 court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. See, Williams v. Superior Court, (2017) 3
10 Cal.5"' 531, 541. For discovery purposes, information is relevant " i f the information might
11 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. See,
12 Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4'*' 698. The information that Plaintiffs
13 requests seek to identify is directly and materially relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs
14 complaint. The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with
15 the party resisting the discovery request. See, Coy v. Superior Court. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.
16 Defendant has made no showing that the requests are not relevant, or are not likely to lead to the
17 discovery of admissible evidence.
18 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are vague and
19 ambiguous. It is not grounds for an objection that the request is ambiguous, unless it is so
20 ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply. See,
21 Cembrook v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423. Defendant has failed to provide any details of
22 why they find the requests vague or ambiguous. A reasonable person could easily understand the
23 requests and be able to form an intelligent reply.
24 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are burdensome and
25 oppressive. Objections to discovery being overbroad, burdensome and oppressive require that
2 6 Defendant can show either an intent to create an unreasonable burden or incommensurate result.
27 Absent such a showing, the information should be produced. See, West Pico Fumiture Company
28
5
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
1 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Defendant has made no such
2 showing.
3 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the information sought is equally
4 available to Plaintiff, which is without merit. The requests are directed to Defendant, who is in
5 possession of the documents requested. Additionally, Defendant has failed to seek a protective
6 order if Defendant truly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other source that is
7 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Cod Civ. Proc. § 2019.030(a)(1).
8 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the information sought invades
9 third party privacy rights. Defendant has failed to identify what privacy rights are being referred to
10 nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's obligation prior to the time that responses
11 are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for good cause, required protection or should only
12 be answered pursuant to specified terms and conditions. See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.060.
13 Many responses assert attomey-client privilege and work product doctrine. When asserting
14 claims of privilege or attorney work product doctrine, the objecting party must include sufficient
15 factual information to enable the requesting party to evaluate the merits of the claim. See, Code
16 Civ. Pro. § 2031.240(c)(1). Defendant has provided absolutely no information on why the
17 information sought should be protected by the asserted privilege and work product doctrine.
18 Additionally, the information sought is in regards to documents and activities that took place
19 between Plaintiff and Defendant during the RELATIONSHIP (the duration of employment
20 between Plaintiff and Defendant) prior to the filing of the instant suit, and therefore could not
21 reasonably be argued that the requested information was made in preparation for the pending
22 litigation.
23 C. Defendant Requires the Discovery to Prepare for Trial
24 Plaintiff is entitled to have access to the information sought before prosecuting an action
25 through trial. Plaintiffs request for admissions seek relevant information related to Plaintiffs
26 claims against Defendant for failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members and
27 various violations of the California Labor Code. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010
28
6
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
1 provides: "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
2 the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in
3 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party
5 to the action." Defendant's failure to provide any substantive responses severely prejudices
6 Plaintiff, in that the playing field is uneven. Defendant is in control of the information sought and
7 must make a good faith effort to provide substantive discovery responses to the best of their
8 ability. Misuses of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized
9 method of discovery, and making an evasive response to discovery. See, Code Civ. Pro. §
10 2023.010(d)(f).
11 D. Sanctions are Warranted
12 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(h) provides:
13 "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
14 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
15 compel further response to a demand, unless itfindsthat the one subject to the sanction acted with
16 substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust."
17 Failure to respond to requests for production, evasive responses, and objections lacking
18 substantial justification or "misuses of the discovery process." See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010(d)-
19 (f). Monetary sanctions may be imposed for serving responses containing "boilerplate" objections.
20 See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court. (1997) 51 Cal. 4"^ 1513, 1516.
21 The court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions
22 or contempt sanctions. Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.030. Counsel has been practicing for over 15 years
23 with a majority of Counsel's practice in employment litigation. Defense Counsel's hourly rate is
24 $325.00 an hour. Counsel's hourly rate is customary within the community. Approximately four
25 hours were spent in the research and preparation of Plaintiff s discovery motion, the Separate
26 Statement, the Supporting Declarations with exhibits and the Proposed Order. Plaintiff has
27 incurred a $60.00 filing fee for the motion. Plaintiff anticipates incurring an additional three hours
28
7
Modon to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sancdons
1 for reviewing and responding to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel
2 Additionally, Plaintiff anticipates spending another three hours to prepare and attend the Noticed
3 hearing. Plaintiffis requesting the Court Order Defendant and Defendant's attorneys be sanctioned
4 in the amount of $3,310.00 for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred
5 HI. CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs
7 Motion to Compel Further Response, and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,310.00
8 against Defendant and Defendant's attomey for their participation in the misuse of the discovery
9 process
10
Dated: October 7, 2020
11 —
Patricia A. Savage, Esq.
12 Attorney for Plaintiff
Jay Robinson
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions
Proof of Service
I, Robert Towne, am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Butte. I am over
the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1550
Humboldt Road, Suite 4, Chico, CA 95928. I am readily familiar with the practice of collection
and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service
and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the
United Stated Postal Service in the ordinary course ofbusiness on the same day.
On October 7, 2020,1 served the within:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE EV SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
By e-mail or electronic transmission: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail
address roberttowne.savagelaw(^gmail.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I
did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
Shane Singh
Lewis Brisbois
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Shane, si ngh(^l ewi sbri sboi s. com
The following is a procedure in which service of this document was effected:
XXXX Electronic Service: shane.singh(§lewisbrisbois.com;
George, theofani s@\em sbri sboi s. com; anne. french@l ewi sbri sboi s. com;
Noi an .kessl er(^l ewi sb ri sboi s. com
I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is tme and correct under the laws of the State
of California and that this declaration was executed on October 7, 2020, at Chico, California.
Robert Tovvne
Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235) 1 SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C. 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 2 Chico, CA 95928 Telephone: (530) 809-1851 FILEDmy/DORSED 3 Facsimile: (530) 592-3865 Email: psavesq(^gmail.com 4 OCT - 8 2020 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs, JAY ROBINSON and Bye. Chapo. Deputy Clerk 6 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of Case No. 34-2019-00262942 11 all others similarly situated. 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND MOTION 14 FOR SANCTIONS 15 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL Filed concurrently herewith: Separate Statement 16 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a of Items in Dispute; and Declaration of Patricia Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & A. Savage 17 JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, 18 and DOES 1-10, Hearing Date: 11/5/2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 Dept.: 54 Defendants. Reservation Number: 2533804 20 21 Action Filed: 08/16/2019 22 23 TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon as the matter 25 may be heard in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9* 26 Street, Sacramento, Califomia 95814, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting its 27 28 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff s Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions 1 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production, Set One propounded 2 to ASOMEO Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC and request for monetary sanctions. 3 Plaintiffbrings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, on the 4 grounds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded discovery are incomplete, evasive, 5 and Defendant's objections are made without merit. 6 This Motion will be based on PlaintifPs Notice of Motion and Motion, Plaintiffs 7 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of 8 Items in Dispute, the Declaration of Patricia A. Savage, as well as the pleadings and records on 9 file in this action. 10 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this 11 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings for 12 the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online 13 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local 14 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the 15 hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 16 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held. 17 18 Date: October 7, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 21 Patricia AT Savage 22 Attorney for Plaintiff Jay Robinson 23 24 25 26 27 28 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions 1 2 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 L STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 On or about April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served onto Defendant ASOMEO Environmental 6 Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") its Request for Production, Set One. See, EXHIBIT A, PAS 7 decl. On or about April 21, 2020, Defendant's Counsel requested a four-week extension, or until 8 June 4, 2020, to provide discovery responses. Plaintiff agreed to the extension. See, EXHIBIT B, 9 PAS decl. On or about June 1, 2020, Defendant's counsel requested an additional four-week 10 extension. Plaintiff agreed to grant a limited two-week extension. See, EXHIBIT C, PAS decl. 11 Defendant provided discovery responses on or about June 18, 2020. See, EXHIBIT D, PAS decl. 12 On or about June 22, 2020, Plaintiff met and conferred by electronic correspondence regarding 13 Defendant's deficient discovery responses as they contained boiler plate objections that appeared 14 to be copied and pasted with objections that were often irrelevant and without support and 15 additionally contained no substantive responses. Plaintiff agreed to provide an additional two 16 weeks, until July 6, 2020, for Defendant to provide substantive discovery responses. See, 17 EXHIBIT E, PAS decl. The parties met and conferred again via electronic communication on 18 July 6, 2020, and Plaintiff agreed to grant Defendant's request for an additional extension of time 19 to provide discovery responses on July 10, 2020. Counsel for Defendant stated that responses had 20 been completed, but the only hold up was waiting for signed verifications from their client. See, 21 EXHIBIT F, PAS decl. On July 13, 2020 Plaintiff again met and conferred with Defendant via 22 electronic communication regarding Defendant's failure to provide responses to Plaintiffs' 23 Request for Production. Counsel for Defendant again stated that they were only waiting on 24 verifications from their client and that responses would be served soon. See, EXHIBIT G, PAS 25 decl. On August 7, 2020, Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that due 2 6 to the impact their client was experiencing due to hurricane Isaias, they were having issues with 27 communications and would continue working on responses to the propounded discovery. See, 28 1 3 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions 1 EXHIBIT H, PAS decl. However, Hurricane Isaias did not make landfall of the United States 2 until August 4, 2020, weeks after Defendant stated that the only hold up was receiving 3 verifications from their client. Despite Plaintiffs multiple efforts to meet and confer, granting of 4 numerous extensions to provide substantive responses. Defendant has failed to provide amended 5 responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Production, and Plaintiff has been forced to move the Court 6 for an Order compelling further responses to discovery. 7 H. L E G A L ARGUMENT 8 A. Defendant Has Failed to Produce Sufiicient Discovery Responses Pursuant to 9 the Civil Discovery Act 10 Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 states that the demanding party may move 11 for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of 12 the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A 13 representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; (3) An objection in 14 response is without merit or too general. The propounding party must bring its motion to compel 15 further responses within 45 days of the service of the response, in accordance with Code Civ. 16 Proc, §§ 2031.310, subd. (c), and must demonstrate that it complied with its obligation to meet 17 and confer. 18 Here, Plaintiff properly propounded request for production to Defendant ASOMEO 19 Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC seeking documents related to Plaintiffs employment 20 with Defendant and related policies, procedures and guidelines. The propounded discovery also 21 requests documents regarding the relationship between the Answering Party and the other named 22 Defendant in the action. 23 Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant on multiple occasions and provided several 24 extensions to Defendant to provide substantive responses to the discovery requests. Defendant has 25 failed to provide substantive responses, and has only provided objections to Plaintiffs requests for 2 6 production. 27 // 28 4 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions 1 B. Defendant's Objections Are Without Merit 2 Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded request for admissions contain no 3 substantive responses - only boiler plate objections that are copy and pasted. 4 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the request is overbroad as to 5 time and scope. Plaintiffs propounded request for production contained definitions of all relevant 6 time periods that the requests ask about. The time and scope of the requests are clearly defined. 7 Every response contains an objection on the grounds that the requests are irrelevant and not 8 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In the absence of a contrary 9 court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. See, Williams v. Superior Court, (2017) 3 10 Cal.5"' 531, 541. For discovery purposes, information is relevant " i f the information might 11 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. See, 12 Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4'*' 698. The information that Plaintiffs 13 requests seek to identify is directly and materially relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs 14 complaint. The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with 15 the party resisting the discovery request. See, Coy v. Superior Court. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220. 16 Defendant has made no showing that the requests are not relevant, or are not likely to lead to the 17 discovery of admissible evidence. 18 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are vague and 19 ambiguous. It is not grounds for an objection that the request is ambiguous, unless it is so 20 ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply. See, 21 Cembrook v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423. Defendant has failed to provide any details of 22 why they find the requests vague or ambiguous. A reasonable person could easily understand the 23 requests and be able to form an intelligent reply. 24 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are burdensome and 25 oppressive. Objections to discovery being overbroad, burdensome and oppressive require that 2 6 Defendant can show either an intent to create an unreasonable burden or incommensurate result. 27 Absent such a showing, the information should be produced. See, West Pico Fumiture Company 28 5 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions 1 of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418. Defendant has made no such 2 showing. 3 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the information sought is equally 4 available to Plaintiff, which is without merit. The requests are directed to Defendant, who is in 5 possession of the documents requested. Additionally, Defendant has failed to seek a protective 6 order if Defendant truly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other source that is 7 more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Cod Civ. Proc. § 2019.030(a)(1). 8 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the information sought invades 9 third party privacy rights. Defendant has failed to identify what privacy rights are being referred to 10 nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's obligation prior to the time that responses 11 are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for good cause, required protection or should only 12 be answered pursuant to specified terms and conditions. See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.060. 13 Many responses assert attomey-client privilege and work product doctrine. When asserting 14 claims of privilege or attorney work product doctrine, the objecting party must include sufficient 15 factual information to enable the requesting party to evaluate the merits of the claim. See, Code 16 Civ. Pro. § 2031.240(c)(1). Defendant has provided absolutely no information on why the 17 information sought should be protected by the asserted privilege and work product doctrine. 18 Additionally, the information sought is in regards to documents and activities that took place 19 between Plaintiff and Defendant during the RELATIONSHIP (the duration of employment 20 between Plaintiff and Defendant) prior to the filing of the instant suit, and therefore could not 21 reasonably be argued that the requested information was made in preparation for the pending 22 litigation. 23 C. Defendant Requires the Discovery to Prepare for Trial 24 Plaintiff is entitled to have access to the information sought before prosecuting an action 25 through trial. Plaintiffs request for admissions seek relevant information related to Plaintiffs 26 claims against Defendant for failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members and 27 various violations of the California Labor Code. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010 28 6 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions 1 provides: "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to 2 the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in 3 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party 5 to the action." Defendant's failure to provide any substantive responses severely prejudices 6 Plaintiff, in that the playing field is uneven. Defendant is in control of the information sought and 7 must make a good faith effort to provide substantive discovery responses to the best of their 8 ability. Misuses of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized 9 method of discovery, and making an evasive response to discovery. See, Code Civ. Pro. § 10 2023.010(d)(f). 11 D. Sanctions are Warranted 12 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310(h) provides: 13 "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to 15 compel further response to a demand, unless itfindsthat the one subject to the sanction acted with 16 substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." 17 Failure to respond to requests for production, evasive responses, and objections lacking 18 substantial justification or "misuses of the discovery process." See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010(d)- 19 (f). Monetary sanctions may be imposed for serving responses containing "boilerplate" objections. 20 See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court. (1997) 51 Cal. 4"^ 1513, 1516. 21 The court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions 22 or contempt sanctions. Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.030. Counsel has been practicing for over 15 years 23 with a majority of Counsel's practice in employment litigation. Defense Counsel's hourly rate is 24 $325.00 an hour. Counsel's hourly rate is customary within the community. Approximately four 25 hours were spent in the research and preparation of Plaintiff s discovery motion, the Separate 26 Statement, the Supporting Declarations with exhibits and the Proposed Order. Plaintiff has 27 incurred a $60.00 filing fee for the motion. Plaintiff anticipates incurring an additional three hours 28 7 Modon to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sancdons 1 for reviewing and responding to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel 2 Additionally, Plaintiff anticipates spending another three hours to prepare and attend the Noticed 3 hearing. Plaintiffis requesting the Court Order Defendant and Defendant's attorneys be sanctioned 4 in the amount of $3,310.00 for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred 5 HI. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs 7 Motion to Compel Further Response, and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,310.00 8 against Defendant and Defendant's attomey for their participation in the misuse of the discovery 9 process 10 Dated: October 7, 2020 11 — Patricia A. Savage, Esq. 12 Attorney for Plaintiff Jay Robinson 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production and Motion for Sanctions Proof of Service I, Robert Towne, am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Butte. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4, Chico, CA 95928. I am readily familiar with the practice of collection and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the United Stated Postal Service in the ordinary course ofbusiness on the same day. On October 7, 2020,1 served the within: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE EV SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION By e-mail or electronic transmission: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address roberttowne.savagelaw(^gmail.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Shane Singh Lewis Brisbois 2020 West El Camino Avenue Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95833 Shane, si ngh(^l ewi sbri sboi s. com The following is a procedure in which service of this document was effected: XXXX Electronic Service: shane.singh(§lewisbrisbois.com; George, theofani s@\em sbri sboi s. com; anne. french@l ewi sbri sboi s. com; Noi an .kessl er(^l ewi sb ri sboi s. com I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is tme and correct under the laws of the State of California and that this declaration was executed on October 7, 2020, at Chico, California. Robert Tovvne