Case Number: BC516553 Hearing Date: May 05, 2014 Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF M. TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Monday, May 5, 2014
Calendar No: 3
Case Name: Carter v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Case No.: BC516553
Motion: Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents
Moving Party: Plaintiff Dale Carter
Opposing Party: Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted. Motion to compel further responses to demands for production of documents is granted as to No. 20 and is otherwise denied.
________________________________________

Background –
On 7/29/13, Plaintiff Dale Carter filed this action against Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center arising out of his employment and termination. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on 11/13/13 and asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA retaliation, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA age discrimination, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, (5) wrongful termination in violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) unfair competition.

Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication set for hearing on 6/10/14. Trial is set 8/4/14; FSC for 7/24/14.

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses –
On 9/13/13, Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories and demands for production of documents on Defendant (Dean Decl. ¶¶ 2-4), and Defendant provided responses on 11/13/13 (id. ¶¶ 5-7, Exs. A-C). After exchanging meet and confer letters (id. ¶¶ 8-9, Exs. D-E) and reaching a resolution as to some issues (id. ¶ 10, Ex. F (letter dated 2/12/14)), Defendant provided supplemental responses on 3/3/14 (id. ¶¶ 12-13, Exs. H-I). Plaintiff filed these motions on 3/26/14.

1. Form Interrogatories
As to the form interrogatories, the Court notes that Defendant has submitted that it intended to supplement many of its responses in its supplemental responses but inadvertently failed to do so. Brecht Decl. ¶ 5. Defendant offers to provide further responses to all form interrogatories that are at issue. See Brecht Decl. ¶ 4; Opp’n p. 2 n.1.

Therefore, in light of Defendant’s concession, the motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories is granted.

2. Demands for Production of Documents
The document demands concern RFP Nos. 16-17, 20, and 35-38. The Court notes that Defendant has submitted that it will provide further responses to RFP No. 20. Opp’n p. 2 n.1.

RFP Nos. 16-17 sought all documents relating to any complaints made against Lisa Fernandez or Zulieka Sansores from 1/1/05 to the present. RFP Nos. 35-38 sought all documents relating to any performance evaluations (35-36) and write-ups, comments, criticisms, or warnings (37-38) of Lisa Fernandez or Zulieka Sansores during their employment with Defendant. Defendant responded with objections based on relevancy, over breadth, privacy, and privilege.

Plaintiff’s action arises out of alleged harassment beginning in 2008 to 2011 (FAC ¶¶ 14-16, 18-19) and discrimination and retaliation in 2010 and 2011 (id. ¶¶ 24, 27-29, 34-35, 37-41). Plaintiff identifies Ms. Fernandez and Ms. Sansores as engaging in this conduct as his supervisors/team leaders. Id. ¶¶ 13, 21.

However, Ms. Fernandez and Ms. Sansores’ employment records are subject to privacy protection. See Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-30; El Dorado Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345-46. “The person seeking discovery of material protected by the constitutional right to privacy ‘has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant’ to the claim or defense.’ A showing of direct relevancy may trigger a balancing by the court of the need for the discovery against the fundamental right of privacy, but ‘the balance will favor privacy for confidential information in third party files unless the litigant can show a compelling need for the particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources.’” Ombudsman Services of Northern California v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1251 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff argues that the RFPs are relevant to other acts to harassment (see, e.g., Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 988 (disapproved of on other grounds in Lakin v. Watkins Assoc. Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 665)) or discrimination and retaliation (see, e.g., Colarossi v. Coty US Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1153-54). However, Plaintiff fails to make any showing of a compelling need for the breadth and scope of the RFPs. Additionally, the RFPs at issue here are not limited to harassment, discrimination, or retaliation; and they request complaints from 1/1/05 (RFP Nos. 16-17) or documents without any time limitation (RFP Nos. 35-38) without a showing of direct relevancy: notably, Plaintiff’s action alleges conduct beginning in 2008.

Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to demands for production of documents is granted as to Demand No. 20 and is otherwise denied.

3. Ruling
The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted. The motion to compel further responses to demands for production of documents is granted as to No. 20 and is otherwise denied.