17-CIV-01393 ARMANDO SOLORIO vs. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al.

ARMANDO SOLORIO CARLA J. HARTLEY

XPO LOGISTICS, INC. RYAN D. SABA

3. XPO GF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,112.50

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion is granted as to category 65. Although this category encompasses Category 29, it is broader. The documents are relevant to the subject matter of the cross-complaint. As to documents that might be proprietary to Plaintiff’s employer, the Court finds that the Protective Order in this matter does not justify requiring Plaintiff to produce those documents. Still, however, Plaintiff must identify all documents that are withheld under that objection. (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2031.240.)

The motion is granted as to categories 66 and 67. Solorio contends that Category 66 is duplicative of Category 33, which sought “DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ASUS USA since YOU became employed at JAS Worldwide.” Plaintiff objected to Category 33 and did not state that he would comply. Therefore, even if Category 66 is a subset of Category 33, it does not justify a refusal to respond. Solorio’s Opposition also states that he has no “non-JAS related documents responsive to this request other than some recently located documents pertaining to work he performed on behalf of XPO after his employment was terminated.” In that case, Solorio must produce them or identify them in an objection log. (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2031.240.)

The motion is denied as to categories 68 and 69. Solorio’s objection for vagueness and overbreadth have merit. Document requests must “Designate the documents . . . by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2031.030, subd. (c)(1).) The request for “all documents relating to” XPO or ASUS is so open ended that they are not “reasonably particularized.”

The motion is granted as to categories 70 and 71. The objections for vagueness, overbreadth, relevance and duplicative lack merit. To the extent that Solorio contends that any documents belong to his employer or that the requests invade a right to privacy, he must comply with statute and identify all documents withheld under that objection. (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2031.240.)

Defendant/Cross-complainant XPO’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $2,310.00 against counsel Carla Hartley and the law firm of Dillingham & Murphy only. The motion does not demonstrate that Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Armando Solorio was responsible for the failure to respond.

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Armando Solorio shall serve supplemental verified responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), as set forth above, no later than April 4, 2018 or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later.

Attorneys Carla Hartley and the law firm of Dillingham & Murphy shall jointly and severally pay a sanction of $2,310.00 to Defendant/Cross-complainant XPO Logistics, Inc. no later than March 29, 2018 or one week after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant XPO shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

4. XPO GF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,112.50

TENTATIVE RULING:

As to all Requests, the objection for exceeding 35 requests is overruled. The Cross-complaint alleges 10 causes of action. Good cause exists for propounding more than 35 requests.

The motion is granted as to Requests 36 and 37. The term “disrupted” is part of two elements of the Cross-complaint’s fourth cause of action for intentional interference with contract. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126.) The main purpose of requests for admissions is to set issues at rest (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.) Requests may properly seek admission of elements of a cause of action. Therefore, Solorio’s objections lack merit.

The motion is denied as to Request 38. “Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself.” (Code of Civ. Proc. sect. 2033.060, subd. (d).) Request 38 is unreasonably open-ended, asking for an admission that Solorio “failed to act with reasonable care,” but without identifying the acts, particular incident or time. The objection for vagueness has merit.

The motion is granted as to Requests 39 through 42. The Cross-complaint’s ninth cause of action is for equitable indemnity based on allegations that XPO incurred legal costs and paid a settlement in the Juni/Higuera lawsuit, which allegedly arose from Solorio’s acts of sexual harassment. The objections lack merit.

The motion is granted as to Requests 43, 44 and 45. These requests are directly relevant to the Cross-complaint’s tenth cause of action, Money Had and Received.

The motion is granted as to Requests 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52 and 53. The first and second causes of action (breach of contract; breach of implied covenant) allege that Solorio divulged confidential information, in violation of various Confidentiality Agreements he signed, and solicited XPO clients, in violation of a Non-Solicitation Agreement. The objections lack merit.

The motion is denied as to Request 49. The Cross-complaint alleges that Solorio was terminated for receiving kickbacks, but XPO does not explain what cause of action relates to the kickbacks. XPO’s moving Points and Authorities and its Separate Statement are silent on this issue.

Defendant/Cross-complainant XPO’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $2,310.00 against counsel Carla Hartley and the law firm of Dillingham & Murphy only. The motion does not demonstrate that Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Armando Solorio was responsible for the failure to respond.

Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Armando Solorio shall serve supplemental verified responses to Requests for Admissions, as set forth above, no later than March 29, 2018 or one week after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later. All supplemental responses shall comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Attorneys Carla Hartley and the law firm of Dillingham & Murphy shall jointly and severally pay a sanction of $2,310.00 to Defendant/Cross-complainant XPO Logistics, Inc. no later than March 29, 2018 or one week after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later.