SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Coordinated Actions:

Turner v. Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc.,

Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV292208

Rocquemore v. Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc.

Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16801065

Case No. 2016-1-CV-292208 (JCCP 4886)

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S MAY 16, 2016 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) NOS. 1 AND 2 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on June 15, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

These are two coordinated cases arising out of alleged Labor Code violations. The Turner case is a putative class action.

On May 16, 2016, the Court issued an order that, among other things, partially granted plaintiff Adrian Turner’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel defendant Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set one, nos. 1 and 2, and ordered the parties to prepare a joint Belaire notice to be sent to all putative class members informing them of the lawsuit and advising them that their names and last known addresses would be disclosed to Plaintiff unless they opt-out as instructed in the Belaire notice. (Declaration of Jill J. Parker in Support of Plaintiff Adrian Turner’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s May 16, 2016 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1 and 2 and Request for Sanctions (“Parker Decl.”), Ex. E.) Plaintiff’s request for phone numbers, email addresses, and business contact information was denied without prejudice. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff asserts he has not received the contact information yet and that Defendant has indicated it intends to submit a motion to revise the discovery order. Plaintiff now moves to enforce the May 2016 order.

II. DISCUSSION

“If a party . . . fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).) The court may also impose a monetary sanction. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues Defendant should be ordered to immediately produce the class list to the third party administrator. Plaintiff states he agreed to defer production of the contact information in good faith while the parties participated in mediation, but it is now apparent Defendant has no intention of complying with the Court’s order.

In opposition, Defendant requests that the Court reconsider the May 2016 order. Defendant states new facts have been uncovered. According to Defendant, recent expert analysis of a sampling of putative class member wage and time cards revealed that 93% of time cards showed employees did not work long enough to require a meal break or a meal break was taken. Defendant contends this and other evidence show a pattern and practice of providing meal breaks.

Defendant also argues that the two proposed class representatives were drivers, but the putative class definition includes various other positions. Defendant contends therefore that the named plaintiffs do not have standing to obtain the contact information of all hourly-paid or non exempt California-based employees.

Defendant’s argument is akin to a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration, however, must be brought within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) The order at issue is two years old.

The Court has the authority to sua sponte reconsider its own orders, but in order to grant reconsideration on its own motion, “a trial court must conclude that its earlier ruling was wrong, and change that ruling based on the evidence originally submitted.” (In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1314, italics in original.) Defendant seeks to have the Court’s order changed based on “new facts” not because the Court made an erroneous order based on the evidence before the Court at the time of the motion. Therefore, there are no grounds for the Court to change its order on its own motion.

There is no basis for the Court’s order to be modified. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the order is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with the required contact information within 10 calendar days.

As a final matter, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,750. The Court exercises its discretion to deny the request for sanctions. Plaintiff did not meet and confer with Defendant prior to filing the motion to compel. Moreover, Plaintiff did not schedule an informal discovery conference with the Court as required by the Complex Civil Litigation Guidelines.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.