Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records we believe defendant is represented by attorney Joshua Feldman from Littler.

Case Number: BC507645 Hearing Date: April 08, 2014 Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF M. TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Calendar No.: 12
Case Name: Mendoza v. Transfield Services, Ltd., et al.
Case No.: BC507645
Motion: (I) Motions for Sanctions
(II) Motion for Summary Adjudication
Moving Party: (I) Plaintiff Ana Mendoza
(II) Defendant Transfield Services Americas
Responding Party: (I) Defendant
(II) Plaintiff
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: (I) Motions for sanctions are granted in part: evidentiary sanctions are ordered as set forth below.

(II) The motion for summary adjudication is denied

On 5/1/13, Plaintiff Ana Mendoza filed this action against Defendants Transfield Services, Ltd.; Transfield Services [North America], Inc.; and Transfield Services Americas (collectively “Transfield”); and Cruz Hernandez arising out of alleges sexual harassment during her employment. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) FEHA sexual harassment, (2) FEHA quid pro quo sexual harassment, (3) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, (4) FEHA retaliation, (5) Civil Code § 1708.5 sexual assault and battery, (6) common law sexual assault and battery, (7) false imprisonment, (8) negligent hiring, supervision and retention, (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (10) violation of Civil Code §§ 52.1 and 52.3, and (11) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Trial is set for 5/12/14; FSC for 4/24/14. Transfield has filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the 2nd through 4th, 8th, and 11th COAs.

I. Motions for Sanctions
Plaintiff has filed motions for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(h) for Transfield’s failure to produce the following individuals for depositions (collectively “Eight Deponents”):
1. A.J. (Adelfo Jaime) Albarran
2. Alex Perez
3. Dawn Hampton
4. Joe Ortiz
5. Jorge Valencia
6. Juan Enriquez
7. Robert Brouillette
8. Robert Perrill

A. Julio Perla and Sergio Ortiz
The Court notes that Plaintiff has also filed motions based on the failure to produce Julio Perla and Sergio Ortiz for depositions. However, the depositions of Julio Perla and Sergio Ortiz do not appear to be at issue because the parties’ papers do not address them (see Kronz Decl. [Ominbus Opp’n] ¶¶ 5-12; RJN Nos. 2-6, 8-10 [Opp’n to MSA] ) and it is implied that these individuals have appeared for their depositions (see Felton Decl. [Omnibus Opp’n] App’x 1). See also Omnibus Reply p. 2:17-18; Pl.’s Ex Parte Application dated 3/14/14 p. 1:25 (asserting that eight former employees were not produced). Therefore, the Court will only address the motions directed at the Eight Deponents

B. Eight Deponents
Plaintiff submits that the Court ordered the depositions of the Eight Deponents to take place (see M.O. dated 1/31/14 p. 3; Order dated 2/20/14) and that none of the Eight Deponents appeared.

In opposition, Transfield submits that A.J. Albarran and Robert Perrill were not employed by Transfield when they were noticed for depositions on 12/17/13 (Kronz Decl. [Ominbus Opp’n] ¶ 5), that Transfield has not employed a Juan Enriquez (id. ¶ 6); and that the remaining individuals are no longer employees of Transfield (id. ¶¶ 7-12). Transfield also submits that Alex Perez is not a critical witness (Felton Decl. [Ominbus Opp’n] ¶¶ 16-20); and that efforts were made to serve the deposition subpoenas (id. ¶¶ 21. 23) except that no service was made on Robert Perrill because his last known address is in Utah (id. ¶ 21) and service was unable to be effected as to A.J. Albarran, Alex Perez, Joe Ortiz, Jorge Valencia, and Dawn Hampton (id. ¶¶ 22).

Transfield’s explanation as to its efforts in obtaining the Eight Deponents had previously been asserted in Transfield’s 2/20/14 ex parte application to modify the Court’s 1-28 order concerning the depositions, which the Court denied as untimely. The Court notes that other than the mere assertions in the declarations of Tammy Kronz and Melvin L. Felton, there has been no documentary evidence submitted that explains the reasonableness of Transfield’s efforts in attempting to comply with the Court’s order concerning the depositions. Quite strikingly, there is no discussion in the Felton declaration of the conversation Dawn Hampton alleges to have had with him on February 6, 2014, at which time she allegedly told him that she would be leaving the state on February 18. Why no attempt at service was made in the meantime, while she purportedly was still in her residence in Victorville, is unexplained.

Transfield otherwise raises issues concerning the alleged unprofessional conduct by Plaintiff’s counsel in relation to other discovery matters. These issues were not considered as they are irrelevant.

Therefore, the Court finds that Transfield has failed to comply with the Court’s order concerning the depositions of the Eight Deponents and that Transfield has failed to establish that it has acted with substantial justification. The Court finds sanctions are appropriate.

C. Sanctions
Plaintiff has requested, jointly or alternatively, monetary sanctions in the amount of $35,000; and evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to accomplish the objects of discovery, not to punish: “A discovery sanction may not place the party seeking discovery in a better position than it would have been in if the desired discovery had been provided and had been favorable.” Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331-32.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is unreasonable as there is no explanation as to how this amount is calculated. Plaintiff’s counsel’s asserts that he has spent “over one hundred hours meeting and conferring and preparing this and the other prior discovery Motions.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary seeks sanctions in connection with prior discovery motions, which the Court has notably declined to award in connection thereto.

Nevertheless, under the circumstances, the Court finds that evidentiary and issue sanctions are appropriate as follows. The Court at trial will preclude Transfield from offering any evidence from the Eight Deponents. The Court will also permit Plaintiff to raise the issue of Transfield’s failure to produce the Eight Deponents for deposition, notably with respect to Dawn Hampton: Transfield submitted a declaration from Ms. Hampton in support of their motion for summary adjudication however Ms. Hampton subsequently provided a declaration that explains the circumstances and incomplete nature of that declaration (Hampton Decl. [Omnibus Reply]), which if true, is quite damning of the defense position in general, and of Mr. Fenton in particular.

The Court at trial will permit judicial notice to be taken of both Hampton declarations allowing them to be shown to the trier of fact, and will allow final argument to raise any reasonable inferences based on said declarations.

II. Motion for Summary Adjudication

The Court will deny Transfield’s motion for summary adjudication which asserts inter alia that Plaintiff’s complaints were properly investigated, that Plaintiff was terminated for a non-retaliatory reason, and that Plaintiff has no evidence to support her claims, since Hampton’s subsequent declaration raises triable issues of fact on these issues..