Case Number: VC063726 Hearing Date: June 12, 2014 Dept: SEC

REED v. IMPERIAL PIPE SERVICES LLC
CASE NO.: VC063726
HEARING: 06/12/14

#7
TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant IMPERIAL PIPE SERVICES LLC’s motion to compel further responses to its demand for production (set one) is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 2031.310.

Plaintiff CRYSTAL REED is ORDERED to serve verified responses to the discovery no later than June 30, 2014.

Plaintiff and her counsel of record are further ORDERED to pay to defendant and its counsel of record sanctions in the amount of $1,020 (which represents 4 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee), no later than July 14, 2014.

Plaintiff Crystal Reed brought this action, seeking damages for wrongful termination and damages under various provisions of the Labor Code for alleged unpaid wages. Defendant served the subject discovery in February 2014. Plaintiff timely responded, by way of asserting boilerplate objections and a statement that plaintiff “will respond.” No documents were produced.

Defendant served meet and confer letters on April 2 and April 18. Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the second letter, but not the follow-up email. Based on the response (general objection asserted to all 157 requests), the Court finds defendant made sufficient effort to meet and confer by explaining to plaintiff’s counsel that boilerplate objections are disfavored and that she has a duty to respond to the extent possible. Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1189. Plaintiff has made no effort to serve any responsive document (despite counsel’s promise that she “will comply.”).

The Court has reviewed defendant’s separate statement and finds that the requests for production appropriately seek documents pertinent to plaintiff’s claims. The number of requests (157) is no unreasonable in light of the fact that plaintiff has asserted 10 causes of action, alleging both wrongful termination/harassment claims and unpaid wage causes of action. Plaintiff has not proffered any evidence that responding would cause an undue burden. Day v. Rosenthal (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1171 (quoting West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417).

The Court further notes that it does not appear any of the requests seek documents which would be protected under either the attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. If there are such responsive documents, plaintiff must serve a privilege log identifying those writings. Wellpoint Health Networks v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 110, 119-120.

Although defendant references a Notice of Deposition and for Production served at the same time as the written discovery, the Notice of Motion does not seek an order pertaining to the deposition (which appears to have been taken off calendar due to plaintiff’s failure to produce). No order is issues with respect to the deposition.