Preview
Er^iDORSED
1Mark C. Le Clerc (SBN 184531)
L E C L E R C & L E CLERC LLP
2 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 1019
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
LEGAL PROCESS
3 PHONE: (415)445-0900
FAX: (415)445-9977
4
Stephen Danz, Esq^ (SBN 130867)
5 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN DANZ
11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500
6 Los Angeles, CA 90049
7 Telephone: (877) 789-9707
Facsimile: (310)207-5006
8
Attomeys for PLAINTIFF
9 MICHAEL GROH
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
CASE NO. 34-2012-00129278-CU-OE-GDS
14 MICHAEL GROH,
PLAINTIFF MICHAEL GROH'S NOTICE
15 Plaintiff, OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
16 vs. ELECTEK'S SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S (1)
17 SASCO, et al., REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, (2) FORM
18 Defendants. INTERROGATORIES, EMPLOYMENT,
SET ONE; AND (3) DOCUMENTS
19 IDENTIFIED ON DEFENDANTS'
PRIVILEGE LOGS; REQUEST FOR
20 MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
21 AUTHORITIES
22 Date: July 29,2013 ^ U \) 1/
Time: 9:00 a.m.
23 Dept: 54
24 COMPLAINT FILED: 08/02/2012
TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
25
26
TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
27
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 29, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of tiie
28
Sacramento County Superior Court, 800 Nmth Stteet, Sacramento, Califomia 95814, Plaintiff
Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 1
1 Michael Groh v^dll, and hereby does, move the Court for an order compelling further responses to
2 Defendant Electek's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's (1) Request for Production of
3 Documents, Set One, (2) Form Intenogatories, Employment Law, Set One, and (3) certam
4 documents identified on Defendants' Supplemental Privilege Logs dated April 30,2013.
5 This motion is brought on the grounds that full and complete answers were not provided
6 to certain written discovery requests. Further, various redactions contained in records provided,
7 as well as refusals to respond based on asserted privileges, are inappropriate and without merit,
8 all as identified and set forth in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery Items in
9 Dispute. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 (Interrogatories) and 2031.310 (Inspection Demands).
10 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h) and 2023.010(e)
11 and (i). Plaintiff also requests an order for monetary sanctions in the amoimt of $1,110.00 as
12 against Defendant Electek and/or its counsel, Gordon & Rees LLP, representing two hours of
13 Plaintiffs counsel's time at $525.00 per hour and tiie $60.00 filing fee.
14 This motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
15 Authorities, and the accompanying Declarations of Mark C. Le Clerc and Michael Groh, as well
16 as argument of counsel at the hearing and all papers and pleadings on file with this Court.
17 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits
18 ofthis matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text ofthe
19 tentative rulings for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the
20 party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the
21 department as referenced in the local telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m.
22 and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you
23 do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing,
24 no hearing wUl be held. Le CLERC & Le CLERC LLP
25
DATED: June 28, 2013 By:
26 MARK C. Le CLERC
27 Counsel for Plaintiff MICHAEL GROH
28 [MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A UTHORITIES FOLLOWS NEXT PAGE]
Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
2 A. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff Michael Groh moves this Court for an order compelling further responses to
4 Defendant Electek's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs:
5 1. Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Specifically, Electek identified
6 and produced numerous board of directors and executive committee meeting minutes of both
7 defendants that are heavily redacted. While Electektimelyasserted the attomey-client privileges
8 as to the various meeting minutes, its objections regarding "third party privacy" and "proprietary
9 business information" were untimely and thus waived. Further, Plaintiff is wholly unable to
10 determine which asserted objections apply to the various redactions on the documents.
11 2. Form Intenogatories, Employment Law, Set One. Electek identifies numerous
12 witnesses in its response to Form Intenogatory No. 207.2, yet does not provide discoverable
13 witaess contact information as required by the intenogatory and expressly permitted by Code of
14 Civil Procedure section 2017.010.
15 3. In addition. Defendants have identified three different responsive documents on
16 tiieir Supplemental Privilege Logs to which the asserted privileges do not apply, as identified and
17 explained in Plaintiffs Separate Statement. Request is made for an order compelling production
18 of those documents.
19 Substantive argument in support of an order requiring further responses is contained in
20 Plaintiffs accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery Items in Dispute.
21 B. REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER
22 Plaintiffs counsel wrote a meet and confer letter to Electek's counsel on May 29,2013,
23 identifying the various issues in dispute and providing legal and factual authorit>' for Plaintiffs
24 position set forth herein.
25 On June 4,2013, Electek's counsel wrote that he had just returned to his office after a
26 two week absence and requested that Plaintiffs deadline in which to move to compel be
27 continued to June 28, 2013, to afford defense counsel time to review the letter and respond.
28
Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 3
1 Plaintiff's coimsel agreed to this. However, Electek's counsel did not respond. (See Declaration
2 of Mark C. Le Clerc ("Le Clerc Deck") at ^ 1, Exs. A, B.)
3 C. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4 This is a wrongfiil employment termination and Labor Code retaliation suit brought by
5 Plaintiff Michael Groh ("Plaintiff") against Defendants Sasco and Electek, Plaintiffs former
6 employers. The two defendant companies are related and represented by the same firm, Gordon
7 & Rees LLP. Sasco is an electtical contractor. Electek is a spin-off of Sasco and provides
8 administtative services to Sasco, among other entities.
9 Plaintiff was formerly the CFO of Sasco and the President of Electek, among other high-
10 level executive positions. Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated after discovering and
11 reporting to his superiors, including but not limited to Larry Smead (an officer and director of
12 both defendants), alleged fraud being committed by Plaintiffs colleagues upon outside third
13 parties wdth regard to a particular construction project.
14 Plaintiff served his subject Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form
15 Intenogatories, Employment Law, Set One on Electek on November 13, 2012. (Le Clerc
16 DecI.,Exs. C and D.) Electek responded to the discovery requests; however, Plaintiff contended
17 some ofthe responses were deficient. The parties met and confened and both Defendants
18 (Electek and Sasco) served supplemental responses and documents to v^ritten discovery per
19 agreement on April 18,2013. (Le Clerc Deck, ^ 6, Exs. G, H and I.)
20 On April 30, 2013, Defendants Electek and Sasco served fiirther documents and
21 supplemental privilege logs. (Le Clerc Deck, Exs. J and K.) As explained in the accompanying
22 Separate Statement of Discovery Items in Dispute, the supplemental privilege logs untimely
23 asserted new privileges regarding the documents subject to this motion.
24 As set forth above. Plaintiff initiated a reasonable attempt to meet and confer over the
25 items in conttoversy, but that effort was unsuccessful.
26
D. MOTION TIMELY FILED
27 Counsel agreed in writing to extend Plaintiffs deadline in which to file this motion to
28 June 28,2013 (Le Clerc Deck, Ex. B.)
Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 4
1 E. LEGAL AUTHORITY
2 Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310(a) provide that a party to the
3 action may move to compel fiirther responses to the discovery demands at issue where (1) a
4 statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to
5 comply is inadequate, mcomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection thereto is without merit or too
6 general. Legal and factual argument as to why fbrther responses should be compelled here is set
7 forth in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery Items in Dispute.
8 F. REOUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
9 Request for a monetary sanction in the amount of $1,110.00 as against Defendant Electek
10 and/or its counsel Gordon & Rees LLP is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections
11 2030.300(d) (intenogatories), 2031.310(h) (RPDs) and 2023.010(e) and (i) (failing to meet and
12 confer and asserting improper objections as abuses of the discovery process).
13 Underlying support for this request is contained in the accompanying Declaration of
14 Mark C. Le Clerc, at paragraphs 11 and 12.
15 G. CONCLUSION
16 For the reasons set forth here and in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery
17 Items in Dispute, Plaintiff Michael Groh respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion to
18 Compel Further Responses and order Defendants Electek and Sasco to provide further responses
19 to Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Intenogatories,
20 Employment Law, Set One, as set forth in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery
21 Items in Dispute.
22
23 Le CLERC & Le CLERC LLP
24
25 DATED: June 28, 2013 By: A^M/Ui. L-^ L (JS^U^
MARK C. Le CLERC
26 Counsel for Plaintiff,
27 MICHAEL GROH
28
Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 5
Preview
Er^iDORSED 1Mark C. Le Clerc (SBN 184531) L E C L E R C & L E CLERC LLP 2 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 1019 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 LEGAL PROCESS 3 PHONE: (415)445-0900 FAX: (415)445-9977 4 Stephen Danz, Esq^ (SBN 130867) 5 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN DANZ 11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500 6 Los Angeles, CA 90049 7 Telephone: (877) 789-9707 Facsimile: (310)207-5006 8 Attomeys for PLAINTIFF 9 MICHAEL GROH 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 CASE NO. 34-2012-00129278-CU-OE-GDS 14 MICHAEL GROH, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL GROH'S NOTICE 15 Plaintiff, OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT 16 vs. ELECTEK'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S (1) 17 SASCO, et al., REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, (2) FORM 18 Defendants. INTERROGATORIES, EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE; AND (3) DOCUMENTS 19 IDENTIFIED ON DEFENDANTS' PRIVILEGE LOGS; REQUEST FOR 20 MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 21 AUTHORITIES 22 Date: July 29,2013 ^ U \) 1/ Time: 9:00 a.m. 23 Dept: 54 24 COMPLAINT FILED: 08/02/2012 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET 25 26 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 29, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 54 of tiie 28 Sacramento County Superior Court, 800 Nmth Stteet, Sacramento, Califomia 95814, Plaintiff Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 1 1 Michael Groh v^dll, and hereby does, move the Court for an order compelling further responses to 2 Defendant Electek's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's (1) Request for Production of 3 Documents, Set One, (2) Form Intenogatories, Employment Law, Set One, and (3) certam 4 documents identified on Defendants' Supplemental Privilege Logs dated April 30,2013. 5 This motion is brought on the grounds that full and complete answers were not provided 6 to certain written discovery requests. Further, various redactions contained in records provided, 7 as well as refusals to respond based on asserted privileges, are inappropriate and without merit, 8 all as identified and set forth in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery Items in 9 Dispute. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 (Interrogatories) and 2031.310 (Inspection Demands). 10 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h) and 2023.010(e) 11 and (i). Plaintiff also requests an order for monetary sanctions in the amoimt of $1,110.00 as 12 against Defendant Electek and/or its counsel, Gordon & Rees LLP, representing two hours of 13 Plaintiffs counsel's time at $525.00 per hour and tiie $60.00 filing fee. 14 This motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and 15 Authorities, and the accompanying Declarations of Mark C. Le Clerc and Michael Groh, as well 16 as argument of counsel at the hearing and all papers and pleadings on file with this Court. 17 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits 18 ofthis matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text ofthe 19 tentative rulings for the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the 20 party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the 21 department as referenced in the local telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. 22 and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you 23 do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, 24 no hearing wUl be held. Le CLERC & Le CLERC LLP 25 DATED: June 28, 2013 By: 26 MARK C. Le CLERC 27 Counsel for Plaintiff MICHAEL GROH 28 [MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A UTHORITIES FOLLOWS NEXT PAGE] Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 2 A. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff Michael Groh moves this Court for an order compelling further responses to 4 Defendant Electek's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs: 5 1. Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Specifically, Electek identified 6 and produced numerous board of directors and executive committee meeting minutes of both 7 defendants that are heavily redacted. While Electektimelyasserted the attomey-client privileges 8 as to the various meeting minutes, its objections regarding "third party privacy" and "proprietary 9 business information" were untimely and thus waived. Further, Plaintiff is wholly unable to 10 determine which asserted objections apply to the various redactions on the documents. 11 2. Form Intenogatories, Employment Law, Set One. Electek identifies numerous 12 witnesses in its response to Form Intenogatory No. 207.2, yet does not provide discoverable 13 witaess contact information as required by the intenogatory and expressly permitted by Code of 14 Civil Procedure section 2017.010. 15 3. In addition. Defendants have identified three different responsive documents on 16 tiieir Supplemental Privilege Logs to which the asserted privileges do not apply, as identified and 17 explained in Plaintiffs Separate Statement. Request is made for an order compelling production 18 of those documents. 19 Substantive argument in support of an order requiring further responses is contained in 20 Plaintiffs accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery Items in Dispute. 21 B. REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER 22 Plaintiffs counsel wrote a meet and confer letter to Electek's counsel on May 29,2013, 23 identifying the various issues in dispute and providing legal and factual authorit>' for Plaintiffs 24 position set forth herein. 25 On June 4,2013, Electek's counsel wrote that he had just returned to his office after a 26 two week absence and requested that Plaintiffs deadline in which to move to compel be 27 continued to June 28, 2013, to afford defense counsel time to review the letter and respond. 28 Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 3 1 Plaintiff's coimsel agreed to this. However, Electek's counsel did not respond. (See Declaration 2 of Mark C. Le Clerc ("Le Clerc Deck") at ^ 1, Exs. A, B.) 3 C. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 This is a wrongfiil employment termination and Labor Code retaliation suit brought by 5 Plaintiff Michael Groh ("Plaintiff") against Defendants Sasco and Electek, Plaintiffs former 6 employers. The two defendant companies are related and represented by the same firm, Gordon 7 & Rees LLP. Sasco is an electtical contractor. Electek is a spin-off of Sasco and provides 8 administtative services to Sasco, among other entities. 9 Plaintiff was formerly the CFO of Sasco and the President of Electek, among other high- 10 level executive positions. Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated after discovering and 11 reporting to his superiors, including but not limited to Larry Smead (an officer and director of 12 both defendants), alleged fraud being committed by Plaintiffs colleagues upon outside third 13 parties wdth regard to a particular construction project. 14 Plaintiff served his subject Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form 15 Intenogatories, Employment Law, Set One on Electek on November 13, 2012. (Le Clerc 16 DecI.,Exs. C and D.) Electek responded to the discovery requests; however, Plaintiff contended 17 some ofthe responses were deficient. The parties met and confened and both Defendants 18 (Electek and Sasco) served supplemental responses and documents to v^ritten discovery per 19 agreement on April 18,2013. (Le Clerc Deck, ^ 6, Exs. G, H and I.) 20 On April 30, 2013, Defendants Electek and Sasco served fiirther documents and 21 supplemental privilege logs. (Le Clerc Deck, Exs. J and K.) As explained in the accompanying 22 Separate Statement of Discovery Items in Dispute, the supplemental privilege logs untimely 23 asserted new privileges regarding the documents subject to this motion. 24 As set forth above. Plaintiff initiated a reasonable attempt to meet and confer over the 25 items in conttoversy, but that effort was unsuccessful. 26 D. MOTION TIMELY FILED 27 Counsel agreed in writing to extend Plaintiffs deadline in which to file this motion to 28 June 28,2013 (Le Clerc Deck, Ex. B.) Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 4 1 E. LEGAL AUTHORITY 2 Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310(a) provide that a party to the 3 action may move to compel fiirther responses to the discovery demands at issue where (1) a 4 statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to 5 comply is inadequate, mcomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection thereto is without merit or too 6 general. Legal and factual argument as to why fbrther responses should be compelled here is set 7 forth in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery Items in Dispute. 8 F. REOUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 9 Request for a monetary sanction in the amount of $1,110.00 as against Defendant Electek 10 and/or its counsel Gordon & Rees LLP is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 11 2030.300(d) (intenogatories), 2031.310(h) (RPDs) and 2023.010(e) and (i) (failing to meet and 12 confer and asserting improper objections as abuses of the discovery process). 13 Underlying support for this request is contained in the accompanying Declaration of 14 Mark C. Le Clerc, at paragraphs 11 and 12. 15 G. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons set forth here and in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery 17 Items in Dispute, Plaintiff Michael Groh respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion to 18 Compel Further Responses and order Defendants Electek and Sasco to provide further responses 19 to Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Intenogatories, 20 Employment Law, Set One, as set forth in the accompanying Separate Statement of Discovery 21 Items in Dispute. 22 23 Le CLERC & Le CLERC LLP 24 25 DATED: June 28, 2013 By: A^M/Ui. L-^ L (JS^U^ MARK C. Le CLERC 26 Counsel for Plaintiff, 27 MICHAEL GROH 28 Ntc of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant Electek's Suppl Responses; MP&A - 5