Case Name: Cal. State Labor Comm. v. Ryan Peacock, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 19CV342323

Plaintiff California State Labor Commissioner (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Ryan Peacock, Inc. (“RPI”), Ryan Peacock and Tristan Moerman (collectively “Defendants”) based on Defendants’ unlawful retaliation against and wrongful termination of employees (Conor Bechly and Michelle Leon) who complained of OSHA violations and were fired in July 2016. The original and still operative Complaint, filed January 31, 2019, states three causes of action: 1) Violation of Labor Code §98.6; 2) Violation of Labor Code §1102.5, and; 3) Violation of Labor Code §6310.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further (“supplemental”) responses to requests for production of documents (“RFPDs”), set one, which it propounded on all three Defendants.

Discovery Dispute

Plaintiff served its RFPDs on each of the three Defendants on August 22, 2019. (See Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel Doris Ng [“Ng. Decl.”] at ¶6; Declaration of Defense Counsel Miriam Renzi [“Renzi Decl.”] at ¶3.) All three Defendants served their unverified initial responses along with 40 pages of documents (apparently consisting of the personnel files of Conor Bechly and Michelle Leon) on September 26, 2019 by regular mail. (See Ng Decl. at ¶7; Renzi Decl. at ¶4.)

On October 7, 2019 Plaintiff’s Counsel sent Defendant Counsel a meet and confer letter, asking for verifications from all three defendants and requesting supplemental responses to RFPDs 1, 13, 14, 24-30 & 42 and also requesting a privilege log covering the various responses where a privilege was claimed to apply. The email to which the letter was attached stated that the letter addressed “Ryan Peacock, Inc.’s responses and the individual defendants’ responses to the extent they raise the same objections.” The letter requested a response by “no later than COB on October 14, 2019,” not October 11 as Defense Counsel claims in her declaration. (See Ng. Decl. at ¶¶8-9 and exhibit A; Renzi Decl. at ¶5 and exhibit B.) The letter further stated that if no response was received by October 14, “I will be forced to file a motion. If you prefer to discuss via telephone, please confirm a specific time on any of the following and I will call you: October 8th other than 2:30-3:30; 9th after 1 pm; 10th between 11:30 and 3 pm, and anytime on 11th. Please note that contrary to the previous time we met and conferred concerning Defendants’ interrogatory responses, where you promised to supplement responses but failed to do so time and time again, thus forcing me to begin preparing a motion to compel, going forward, if I do not receive responses and documents by an agreed date that is in advance of my deadline to compel, I will be forced to file a motion to compel.”

There was no response by October 14. Instead, Defense Counsel sent Plaintiff’s Counsel an email on the afternoon of October 15 stating in pertinent part: “I am in receipt of your meet and confer letter, but have not had a chance to review. I will provide you with a response no later than the close of business Friday.” Plaintiff’s Counsel responded shortly thereafter that same day by stating that a “substantive response” by October 18 would leave little time to file a motion for a hearing date in November. “If a Dec 5th hearing date works for you then I can wait until COB Friday, Oct 18th at the latest for your substantive response.” Later that afternoon Plaintiff’s Counsel sent a further email, stating that “the 12/5/19 hearing date is no longer available with the Court. Please let me know by COB today if Dec. 19th works for you as a hearing date.” Defense Counsel did not respond until the next day, October 16, stating in pertinent part: “You have plenty of time to file your motion—just wondering what the rush is? Did you not want to meet and confer?” Plaintiff’s counsel responded that same day by pointing out that Plaintiff was clearly attempting to meet and confer and again asking for confirmation of a December 19 hearing date. “If you agree to the Dec. 19th hearing date, I can wait until 10/18—the date you state you will provide a substantive response to my Oct 7th meet and confer letter.” Defense Counsel did agree to the Dec. 19 hearing date that day and Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that the date had been reserved.

October 18 came and went without any further response from Defense Counsel. At 5:02 pm on October 25, a week after her self-selected deadline, Defense Counsel sent Plaintiff’s Counsel an email stating “I have not gotten to your meet and confer letter in the midst of the move, but believe a brief teleconference would [sic] to discuss the items at issue would resolve this expeditiously. A memorandum would follow after our call summarizing which items resolved and which are outstanding.” Plaintiff’s counsel responded that same evening, noting the failure to comply as agreed and stating: “Given that the three defendants made boilerplate objections and failed to produce numerous categories of clearly discoverable documents, there are numerous issues to be resolved (in addition to the issues I identified in my letter, I noticed that defendant RPI refused to produce documents relating to complaints filed against it with government agencies, such as OSHA; request #43; plaintiff is willing to limit the request from January 1, 2009 to the present in an effort to meet and confer). I can agree to schedule a call on the understanding that you will meet and confer with me in good faith to try to resolve the issues and that you will both email me and serve additional responses and documents such that I receive the responses and documents no later than 10/31/19. If you further delay responding and producing documents, I will be forced to seek the court’s intervention. I can do a call on 10/28/19 at 2pm-5pm or on 10/29 at the same times. Please let me know what time works for you so I can be at my desk.”

There was no further response from Defense Counsel prior to Plaintiff’s motion to compel being filed on November 6, 2019. (See Ng. Decl. at ¶9.) In the Reply Plaintiff’s Counsel indicates that on Dec. 3, after the current motion was filed, Defense Counsel did (belatedly) respond to the October 7 meet and confer letter, but no further responses were provide by Defendants.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPDs

Plaintiff moves to compel further, verified, responses to RFPDs 1, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23-30 and 43 as directed at Defendant RPI, RPFDs 13, 24-29 and 42 as directed to individual Defendant Ryan Peacock, and to RFPDs 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 as directed at individual Defendant Tristan Moerman.

Pursuant to CCP §2031.310, governing motions to compel further responses to RFPDs: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

On a motion to compel a further response to a request for production of documents it is the moving party’s burden to demonstrate good cause for the discovery sought. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 (Kirkland).) “Good cause” requires a showing or both relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case) and specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.4th 1113, 1117.) Information is relevant to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Once good cause has been shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 98.)

CCP §2031.320 provides that a requesting party may move for an order compelling compliance if a party indicates in a response that it will produce documents responsive to a request and, thereafter, fails to produce the documents in accordance with the statement of compliance. Such a motion must demonstrate that the responding party agreed to produce the documents and then failed to do so in accordance with its statement of compliance; the moving party need not show good cause and CCP §2031.320 does not require a meet and confer declaration.

Adequacy of meet and confer efforts: Defendants’ primary argument in opposition to this motion (and the only substantive argument made in their short opposition brief) is that the motion should be denied in its entirety due to Plaintiff’s purported failure to adequately meet and confer. The Court finds that, as to every RFPD actually discussed in Plaintiff’s October 7, 2019 meet and confer letter (RFPDs 1, 13, 14, 24-30 and 42 as directed at all Defendants) and as to RFPD 43 as directed at Defendant RFI (raised in the October 25 email exchange) Plaintiff’s meet and efforts were more than sufficient. As to those requests it is plainly Defendants and not Plaintiff who failed to engage in any meaningful meet and confer discussion. The Court will therefore proceed to consider the motion to compel further responses as to those RFPDs.

Regarding the responses to RFPDs 16, 18 & 23 as directed at Defendant RPI, while these responses were not discussed in the meet and confer correspondence, the initial responses provided by RPI stated, subject to boilerplate objections, that it “will produce all documents in its possession, custody and control that are responsive to this request.” Therefore, CCP §3031.320 applies to these responses and no meet and confer effort was required. The Court will therefore consider the motion to compel further responses as to those RFPDs.

As to RFPDs 10, 21, 22, and 23 as directed to Defendant Moerman, as these were not mentioned in any meet and confer discussion submitted to the Court and the initial responses provided did not promise to provide responsive documents, the Court finds there was inadequate meet and confer efforts and the motion is DENIED as to these four RFPDs as directed at Defendant Moerman without further discussion. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s frustration with what can fairly be described as delay tactics, the motion cannot be granted as to RFPDs which were not addressed in any meet and confer discussion prior to the filing of the motion to compel and whose responses did not include a promise to produce responsive documents.

As an initial matter the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for the information sought in all of the targeted RFPDs as they all seek documents relevant to Defendants’ alleged unlawful retaliation against and termination of specific employees, and which may contain information that might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Accordingly Defendants’ unsupported, boilerplate objection to virtually every request on the basis that each is purportedly “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is overruled.

Specific RFPDs

RFPD no. 1 (as to RPI)

This request asks for each document “relating to your organizational hierarchy from January 1, 2013 to the present.” Defendant RPI responded with objections: the (already overruled) objection that the request would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; that it was overly broad as to scope and seeks protected business information and private individual information.

Defendants have failed to meet their burden to justify these objections and they are therefore overruled. (See Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 612, 619, fn. 2 (Schaeffer) [“[A] point which is merely suggested by a party’s counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion.”].) The request is not overly broad as it simply seeks organizational hierarchy documents from January 2013 through August 2019 (when the request was propounded) and Defendants have failed to articulate how or why it should be narrowed. The request does not seek protected business information and, in any event, under Cal. Labor Code §90 Plaintiff is entitled to access such business records. Revealing the name and titles of RPI employees also does not seriously intrude into third party privacy.

In opposition RPI contends this request is now “moot” because it intends to supplement its response to state that it does not keep such records. An expressed intention to supplement does not moot the request. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to RFPD no. 1. Defendant RPI shall produce a further verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. The asserted objections are overruled and any objections not raised are waived.

RFPD no. 13 (as to RPI and Ryan Peacock)

As directed to RPI, this request seeks documents relating to “employment policies in effect between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” RPI’s unsupported objections that the request is overbroad, not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information and seeks confidential business information are overruled. RPI again claims the motion is “moot” as to this request because it plans, at some unspecified time, to supplement its response. The motion is GRANTED as to this request as directed to RPI. RPI shall produce a further, verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. Asserted objections are overruled and objections not raised are waived.

As directed to Defendant Ryan Peacock this request seeks all documents “relating to worker health and safety . . . in effect at any time between January 1, 2013 and the present.” Defendant Peacock’s response consists of boilerplate objections that the request does not seek discoverable evidence, is overbroad and is vague, all of which are overruled. The response also objects that complying with the request would be unduly burdensome. This objection is also unsupported and overruled. (See West Pico Furniture Co. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 [an “objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required”].) The response then states that “[a]fter a reasonable search and diligent inquiry,” Defendant Peacock “does not have any documents that are responsive to this request because” Defendant Peacock “is not an employer and consequently, the documents requested do not exist.”

The motion is GRANTED as to this request as directed at Defendant Peacock. The unverified response does not fully comply with CCP §2031.230 which states in pertinent part that a party claiming an inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody or control of that item or category of item.” Defendant Peacock shall produce a further, verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. Asserted objections are overruled and objections not raised are waived.

RFPD no. 14 (as to RPI)

This request asks RPI to produce each document “relating to worker health and safety, including but not limited to rules, regulations, laws, protocols . . .in effect at any time between January 1, 2013 and the present,” meaning August 2019. RPI responds with unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad, vague, would not lead to discoverable evidence and that compliance would be unduly burdensome.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request. RPI shall produce a further, verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. Asserted objections are overruled and objections not raised are waived.

RFPD no. 16 (as to RPI)

This request asks RPI for each document “relating to your evaluation of Michelle Leon’s performance for each job title [she] held between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” RPI responded with unsupported boilerplate objections that the request was overbroad, vague and not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence and also stated that it “will produce all documents in its possession, custody and control that are responsive to this request.” According to Plaintiff’s reply, no documents have been produced other than Michelle Leon’s personnel file.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request. RPI shall produce a further, verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. Asserted objections are overruled and objections not raised are waived.

RFPD no. 18 (as to RPI)

This request asks RPI to produce each document “relating to each corrective action taken by you against Michelle Leon between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” RPI’s response repeats verbatim its response to RFPD no. 16. According to Plaintiff’s reply no documents have been produced other than Michelle Leon’s personnel file.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request. RPI shall produce a further, verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. Asserted objections are overruled and objections not raised are waived.

RFPD no. 23 (as to RPI)

This request asks RPI to produce each document “relating to your claim that Conor Bechly quit his employment with you.” RPI response asserts unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence and states once again that RPI “will produce all documents in its possession, custody and control that are responsive to this request. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Responding party reserve the right to amend its responses accordingly.” According to Plaintiff’s reply the only documents produced have been Conor Bechly’s personnel file.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request. RPI shall produce a further, verified code-compliant response within 30 days of this order. Asserted objections are overruled and objections not raised are waived.

RFPD no. 24 (as to all three defendants)

As directed at Defendant RPI this request seeks “[e]ach document relating to your claim that Michelle Leon quit her employment with you.” RPI responds with unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information and also claims that the request “impermissibly” seeks private information and attorney client communications. According to Plaintiff’s reply no documents other than Michelle Leon’s personnel file have been produced.

RPI’s assertion of the attorney work product privilege here and in other initial responses is inadequate. The attorney-client privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer. (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 (Costco).) “[T]he privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.” (Gordon v. Super. Ct. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1557.) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Costco, supra, at p. 733. See also Coito v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502 [an objecting party may only be entitled to (work product) protection “if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveals the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or efforts”].) RPI here has failed to establish the preliminary facts necessary to support either the attorney-client or attorney work product objections in part because it did not provide a privilege log.

While the Code does not require the production of a privilege log at the time an objection based on privilege or attorney work product is made, in ruling on a motion to compel, the court is permitted to require the objecting party to prepare and serve a privilege log. (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130; Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 188-1189.) The purpose of the log is to make a record of the documents withheld and the privilege claim asserted to each, and the information contained therein must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not in fact privileged. (Id.)

The motion is GRANTED as to this request as directed at RPI. RPI shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived. (See Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189 [holding that where a defendant asserted attorney-client privilege in timely manner, albeit in a boilerplate fashion, trial court erred in finding a waiver of privilege].)

As directed at Defendant Peacock this request seeks each document “relating to communication between Conor Bechly and you between January 1, 2013 and [the] present,” which again would mean August 2019. Defendant Peacock responded with unsupported boilerplate objection that the request is overbroad, seeks private and irrelevant information and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. He also asserted that it sought “attorney client communications.” Accordingly to Plaintiff’s reply no documents other than Conor Bechly’s personnel file have been produced.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request as directed at Defendant Peacock. Mr. Peacock shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

As directed at Defendant Moerman request no. 24 seeks each document “relating to communication between any of the Defendants and you relating to Conor Bechly between January 1, 2014 and present.” Defendant Moerman’s response repeats verbatim Defendant Peacock’s response, even though the request as directed at Moerman seeks different documents. According to Plaintiff no responsive documents have been produced other than Conor Bechly’s personnel file.

The motion is GRANTED as to this request as directed at Defendant Moerman. Mr. Moerman shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived

RFPD no. 25 (as to all three defendants)

As directed to Defendant RPI this request seeks each document “relating to communication between Conor Bechly and you between January 1, 2013 and [the] present.” As directed to Defendant Peacock request no. 25 seeks each document “relating to communication between Michelle Leon and you between January 1, 2013 and [the] present.” As directed to Defendant Moerman request no. 25 seeks each document “relating to communications between persons and you relating to Conor Bechly between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.”

All three defendants’ responses repeat the same unsupported boilerplate objections almost verbatim; that the request is overbroad, seeks “private” information, seeks irrelevant information and seeks “attorney client communications.” According to Plaintiff’s reply no documents have been produced other than the personnel files for Conor Bechly and Michelle Leon.

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 25 as directed at all three defendants. Each of them shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived

RFPD no. 26 (as to all three defendants)

As directed to Defendant RPI this request seeks each document “relating to communication between Michelle Leon and you between January 1, 2013 and [the] present.” As directed to Defendant Peacock, this request seeks each document “relating to communication between any of the defendants and you relating to Conor Bechly between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” As directed to Defendant Moerman request no. 26 seeks each document “relating to communication between persons and you relating to Michelle Leon between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.”

Once again each Defendant provides an almost identical response, asserting unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad, seeks private and irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. They each also assert the request as directed to them seeks “attorney client communications.” According to Plaintiff’s reply no documents have been produced other than the personnel files for Conor Bechly and Michelle Leon.

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 26 as directed at all three defendants. Each of them shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

RFPD no. 27 (as to RPI and Ryan Peacock)

As directed to Defendant RPI this request seeks each document “relating to communications between any of the defendants and you relating to Conor Bechly between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” As directed to Defendant Peacock, request no. 27 seeks each document “relating to communications between any of the defendants and you relating to Michelle Leon between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.”

Both defendants provide virtually the same response, making unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad, seeks private and irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. They each also assert the request as directed to them seeks “attorney client communications.” According to Plaintiff’s reply no documents have been produced other than the personnel files for Conor Bechly and Michelle Leon.

The motion is GRANTED as to RPI and Defendant Peacock. Both defendants shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

RFPD no. 28 (as to RPI and Ryan Peacock)

As directed to Defendant RPI this request seeks each document “relating to communication between any of the defendants and you relating to Michelle Leon between January 1, 2014 and [the] present,” meaning August 2019. As directed to Defendant Peacock request no. 28 seeks each document “relating to communication between persons and you relating to Conor Bechly between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” Both Defendants provide an almost identical response (despite the request seeking different documents from each of them), both asserting unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad, “impermissibly” seeks private information, attorney client communications and irrelevant information.

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 28 as directed at RPI and Defendant Peacock. Both defendants shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

RFPD no. 29 (as to RPI and Ryan Peacock)

As directed to Defendant RPI this request seeks each document “relating to communication between persons and you relating to Conor Bechly between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” As directed to Defendant Peacock request no. 29 seeks each document “relating to communication between persons and you relating to Michelle Leon between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” Both defendants provide almost identical boilerplate responses, asserting the request is overbroad, seeks private information, attorney-client communications and information irrelevant to the underlying complaint. Defendant Peacock adds unsupported objections that the request is both not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is unduly burdensome.

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 29 as directed at RPI and Defendant Peacock. Both defendants shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

RFPD no. 30 (as to RPI)

The requests seeks each document “relating to communication between persons and you relating to Michelle Leon between January 1, 2014 and [the] present.” RPI responded with unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad, seeks private information, attorney-client communications and information irrelevant to the underlying complaint.

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 30. Defendant RPI shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

RFPD no. 42 (as to Ryan Peacock only)

This request seeks each document “relating to any complaint filed against you with any governmental agency, including but not limited to Cal-OSHA, federal OSHA, the CA Department of Industrial Relations, the CA Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the US Department of Labor.” Defendant Peacock responds with unsupported boilerplate objections that the request is overbroad “with respect to scope and time, such that compliance with this request would be unduly burdensome,” and that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 42. Defendant Peacock shall produce a further verified code-complaint response within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

RFPD no. 43 (as to RPI)

Other than the defendant it is directed at this request is identical to no. 42, seeking from Defendant RPI each document “relating to any complaint filed against you with any governmental agency, including but not limited to Cal-OSHA, federal OSHA, the CA Department of Industrial Relations, the CA Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the US Department of Labor.” RPI’s response is identical to that given by Defendant Peacock, it objects that the request is overbroad “with respect to scope and time, such that compliance with this request would be unduly burdensome,” and that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In her October 25, 2019 email Plaintiff’s counsel limited the request to January 1, 2009 to the present.

The motion is GRANTED as to request no. 43. Defendant RPI shall produce a further verified code-complaint response (limited to January 1, 2009 to the present) within 30 days accompanied by a privilege log. All asserted objections other than attorney-client privilege are overruled and all objections not asserted are waived.

Monetary Sanctions

Where sanctions are sought in conjunction with a motion to compel the notice of motion must name all parties and attorneys against whom sanctions are sought, specify the type of sanction sought, and cite the authority for such sanctions. (See CCP §2023.040.) Here, Plaintiff’s notice of motion simply seeks “an order that Defendants pay Plaintiff Labor Commissioner the amount of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($3,500.00) in monetary sanctions.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:4-6.) The amount sought is increased to $4,500.00 in the Reply. As the request is not code-complaint it is DENIED.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the opposition to the motion, based on the supposed failure of Plaintiff to meet and confer, is also DENIED.