Case Number: VC063274    Hearing Date: August 28, 2014    Dept: SEC

CULMIN STAFFING GROUP v. PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO., INC.
CASE NO.: VC063274
HEARING: 08/28/14

#5
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff CULMIN STAFFING GROUP, INC.’s motion to compel further responses to its demand for production (set one) is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 2031.310.

Defendant PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO., INC (“PAFCO”) is ORDERED to provide further responses, as set forth below, no later than September 12, 2014.
No sanctions are ordered.

According to the complaint, which was filed in June 2013, plaintiff began providing staffing services to defendant PAFCO in about February 2011. It brought this action after some of those employees were injured on the job. Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached its oral agreement to provide a safe working environment and that it failed to supervised its workers. Plaintiff contends that it was damaged because injuries to its employees caused its worker’s compensation carrier to cancel its policy and it was forced to pay a higher premium to obtain new coverage.

The subject discovery is designed to illicit information pertaining to incidents and claims at defendant’s facility. Counsel resolved some of the issues during meet and confer, but were unable to agree with respect to demand numbers 2 through 6.

Number 2 seeks production of all documents that relate to injuries suffered by any person working at defendant’s facility from and after January 1, 2009.
Number 3 seeks “copies of all lawsuits” dated from January 2009 brought by persons who were physically injured at defendant’s facility. Number 4 seeks workers compensation claims for the same time period.

Number 5 requests production of all notices, from any state or federal agency, that references or relates to the working conditions at the facility. Number 6 seeks “[c]opies of all legal proceedings” commenced against defendant by a state or federal agency relating to the working conditions.

In opposition, defendant argues that this action is one for breach of contract, and that plaintiff is not entitled to conduct discovery regarding any and all injuries or claims filed by defendant’s employees. It also objects to plaintiff seeking documents from January 2009, which was two years before the alleged oral agreement. Specifically, defendant argues that there is no good cause for the discovery sought because injuries to its own workers (if any) are not relevant to the alleged oral contract between the parties.

Defendant also raises privacy concerns with respect to the third party employees.
On May 27, 2014, the parties filed a signed Stipulation pertaining to records marked “confidential.” Any documents containing information regarding third party employees should be designated at such (or redacted).

The Court finds that information regarding other employee injuries is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence of whether defendant provided a safe working environment as allegedly promised. Further responses are ordered, with the following limitations.

Number 3 references lawsuits filed by “persons alleging they suffered physical injuries” at the facility. Production is limited to employees or former employees who were injured (rather than all persons). Additionally, defendant need only produce case numbers, dates and other information which plaintiff reasonably needs to obtain the filings, as the lawsuits themselves are equally available.

With respect to all of the requests at issue, the Court finds they are overbroad in time. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery documents from 6 months before the contract formation (or August 1, 2010) through December 2013.

To the extent that responsive documents are privileged, defendant may produce a privilege log identifying those items withheld from production.