Case Number: BC654190 Hearing Date: June 17, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Defendant Kellermeyer Building Services moves to compel further response from Plaintiff Bloomingdale’s Inc. to two document requests and interrogatories seeking contact information about certain employees. The parties participated in an IDC on March 28, 2019, at which the parties agreed Bloomindales would serve supplemental responses by April 20, 2019.

As an initial matter, BC654190 and BC562362 were consolidated. BC562362 is the lead case. All documents are to be filed in BC562362. Kellermeyer incorrectly filed its motion to compel in BC654190.

Kellermeyer served document requests seeking all documents reflecting all employees present at the Bloomingdale’s store on March 16, 2015 from 6 to 10 a.m. and all documents reflecting the names and contact information of all employees who had clocked in for work during those hours. Kellermeyer also served interrogatories seeking the same information. Bloomingdale’s objected on grounds of privacy and that the requests were burdensome. At the IDC, the parties agreed to limit the requests to employees of the fine jewelry and handbag departments who were scheduled to work between 8 and 10 a.m. on March 16, 2015, and that Bloomingdale’s would serve further responses. When Bloomingdales’s did serve further responses, it objected on privacy and burdensomeness. It also stated that “this responding party is responding in the capacity at the worker’s compensation insurer level” and that Kellermeyer needs to subpoena the Bloomingdale’s corporate office.

Kellermeyer then filed its motion to compel. It explains that the information is relevant because Bloomingdale’s workers on March 16 could have information about signs giving notice the floor was slippery. Bloomingdale’s opposed the motion, arguing that its counsel had no authority to make an agreement at the IDC, Kellermeyer already has the names of the witnesses to the accident, and there is no separate statement.

Kellermeyer established that the employees may have relevant information about notice. Bloomingdale’s objections have no merit. Bloomingdale’s did not establish any legal basis for not revealing the names and contact information of employees who may have relevant information. It presented no evidence of the alleged burden of providing the information. It’s objection that Bloomingdale’s is responding “at the worker’s compensation insurer level” makes no sense. Bloomingdale’s is the plaintiff and has the obligation to produce relevant discovery in its possession, custody, and control. The names and contact information of its employees is in its possession, custody or control.

Therefore, the motion to compel is granted as follows. The original document requests were overbroad because they sought all documents with the employees’ names and contact information. Every such document is not necessary. At the IDC the parties had apparently reached a reasonable agreement narrowing the requests to employees working in the departments closed to the incident. Accordingly, Bloomingdale’s is to produce, within twenty days of the date of this order, documents and interrogatory responses sufficient to identify the names and contact information for the employees of the fine jewelry and handbag departments who were scheduled to work between 8 and 10 a.m. on March 16, 2015.

The motion seeks to compel also seeks $674.15 in sanctions for needing to bring the motions to compel. Some sanctions are warranted because even if the Bloomingdale’s attorney did not have authority to make an agreement at the IDC, after the IDC Bloomingdale’s should have agreed to the proposed narrowing of the discovery requests. Bloomingdale’s objections in its supplemental responses did not have merit, and Plaintiff has a right to discover the identify of potential witnesses on the issue of notice. Accordingly, Bloomingdale’s did not have substantial justification for refusing to produce any information and opposing this motion. Sanctions are warranted.

Kellermeyer moved to compel both further responses to document requests as well as further responses to interrogatories. Therefore, it should have been brought two motions with two filing fees paid. Kellermeyer is to pay the second filing fee and bring evidence to the hearing or file evidence that the second fee was paid. Once Kellermeyer produces evidence it paid the second filing fee, it is awarded $645 in sanctions jointly and severally against Bloomingdale’s and Bloomingdale’s counsel.

The moving party is to give notice.