17-CIV-02046 TATIANNA SMITH VS. TE CONNECTIVITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

TATIANNA SMITH RICHARD L. RICHARDSON TE CONNECTIVITY CORPORATION ANDREA L. FELLION

 PR’ECIS.

 As an introductory matter with respect to these two discovery motions, the Court notes that this case was filed May 10, 2017 and has a trial date of September 24, 2018. The case will soon be a year old, but not much progress in discovery appears to have been made in all that time. Accordingly, in the Court’s view this status of the case, and the apparent marked delay that has gone on, is very pertinent to what the Court should do in ruling on these motions.

 This is an employment case regarding alleged sexual harassment. The plaintiff, Tatianna Smith (the “Employee”), was a 27-yearold female employed as a Finishing Operator at a plant owned by Tyco Electronics (the “Employer”). The alleged harasser, Robert Arteaga, was a Plant Supervisor (the “Supervisor”). It is alleged that the Supervisor made unwanted sexual advances that included touching, harassment, unwanted shoulder massages, unwanted invitations to hotel rooms, explicit comments about the Employee’s physique, and even allusions to the Supervisor having the “power to fire” the Employee if she did not consent to his advances.

 The Employee filed the instant case in May 2017. Claims made are: 1. Sexual harassment (FEHA – quid pro quo) 2. Hostile work environment (FEHA – Gov’t Code §12940(j)) 3. Retaliation (FEHA – Gov’t Code §12940(h)) 4. Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy 5. Discrimination based upon race (FEHA – Gov’t Code §12940(a)) 6. Negligent hiring, retention and training 7. Intentional infliction of emotional distress

 The Supervisor and the Employer (collectively, “Defendants”) answered on September 25, 2017. The case is scheduled for ADR Mediation on April 19, 2018. It appears that the Employee remains employed by the Employer, but there is some suggestion in the papers that the Employer will be closing the plant in April 2018.

 In this context, the Defendant Employer Tyco Electronics seeks (1) a Protective Order delaying the Plaintiff’s taking the deposition of the Supervisor, the person who has allegedly engaged in the claimed sexual harassment and other alleged misconduct and (2) an Order To Compel Response to obtain enforcement of written discovery requests – form interrogatories, special interrogatories and document requests.

 As set forth below, the Court declines to issue a Protective Order, but grants the Order to Compel further discovery responses.

 IF ANY PARTY CONTESTS THESE TWO TENTATIVE RULINGS, HEARING IS REQUIRED. COUNSEL TO PERSONALLY APPEAR. NO TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES. NO “COVERING” COUNSEL. PRIOR TO HEARING, COUNSEL TO MEET & CONFER WITH AN EYE TO RESOLVING THIS DISCOVERY DISPUTE. ALSO, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, COUNSEL SHOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO FURTHER MEET & CONFER. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, at 1434, noting that “…civil discovery [should] be essentially self-executing…”.)

3. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY TE CONNECTIVITY CORPORATION AND ROBERT ARTEAGA

 DENIED. Defendants TE Connectivity Corporation’s and Robert Arteaga’s Motion for Protective Order is denied. Their requested sanctions are also denied.

 As the moving parties concede in their papers, the Court has the broad discretionary authority to control the sequence of discovery where justice requires; and further that the Court should encourage the parties to expedite discovery. See, e.g., Rosemont v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d, at 709, quoted by movants.

 There is no statutory right to have priority in discovery or to take a deposition in a particular order over other depositions or discovery procedures. And in view of the upcoming mediation and late September trial date, the Court is of the opinion that the discovery sequencing agreement previously agreed by counsel should not carry the day here.

 Further, this case does not pose the same concerns over unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment or oppression or undue burden and expense that prevailed in Poeschl v. Superior Court (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 383.

 Objection that Plaintiff’s late-filed (by four days) Opposition should not be considered by the Court is overruled, the Opposition having been considered. However, the Court has also considered all of Defendants’ reply papers including the latest further reply. The interests of all Parties here are better served by reaching the merits of these motions.

 If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall stand as the Order of the Court, effective immediately pursuant to Rule 3.1308 (a) (1), Calif. Rules of Court, as adopted by Local Rule 3.10, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312, or any other notice, is required, the tentative ruling having given sufficient notice to the parties.

4. MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FOR RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS BY TE CONNECTIVITY CORPORATION AND ROBERT ARTEAGA

 GRANTED. Defendants TE Connectivity Corporation’s and Robert Arteaga’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is granted. Their requested sanctions are denied. Plaintiff Tatianna Smith to provide further responses, without objections and complying with this ruling, within 20 days.

 The Employer propounded requests for production of documents on Plaintiff by mail on December 19, 2017. As such, the deadline for Plaintiff to respond was January 23, 2018. C.C.P. §§1010.6(a)(4), 1013, 2031.260 and 2016.050. Plaintiff did not respond by that deadline. Failure to respond waives any objections. C.C.P. §2031.300(a). And the party making the demand may move to compel a response. C.C.P. §2031.300(b).

 However, Defendants acknowledge that, after the deadline had passed, they received multiple supplemental responses. Defense counsel was not aware of some of those responses when they filed the instant motion on February 21, 2018. Upon learning of those responses, Defendants still maintain that even the supplemental responses are deficient in the following ways:

1. the supplemental responses improperly assert objections — since the initial responses were untimely, all objections have been waived;

2. again, there are 21 RFPDs and Plaintiff’s responses lump all requests together into one response;

3. the supplemental response consists of 19 pages — this is a sexual harassment case and the supplemental responses do not include a single text message, notes, summaries or communications regarding the underlying facts of the case; no documents regarding Plaintiff’s hiring or promotion; no documents regarding Plaintiff’s medical records for her emotional distress claim.

 First, as set forth above, failure to timely respond waives all objections. C.C.P. §2031.300(a). Thus, Plaintiff has waived all objections. Second, “[e]ach statement of compliance, each representation, and each objection in the response shall bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the corresponding item or category in the demand…” C.C.P. §2031.210. Plaintiff’s responses, including the supplemental responses, do not appear to follow this requirement. Third, a response to a demand for inspection must include a statement that the party will comply (unless the response contains only objections). See C.C.P. §2031.210, et seq. That statement must be signed by the party under oath. C.C.P. §2031.250(a). Neither of Plaintiff’s supplemental responses comply with these rules.

 Objection that Plaintiff’s late-filed (by four days) Opposition should not be considered by the Court is overruled, the Opposition having been considered. However, the Court has also considered all of Defendants’ reply papers including the latest further reply. The interests of all Parties here are better served by reaching the merits of these motions.