2012-00134706-CU-OE

Yamin T Scardigli vs. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Gorham III, William J.

On motion of the court, this matter is continued to November 20, 2013 at 09:00AM in
this department. If the new date is inconvenient for any party, then counsel shall meet
and confer and inform the Department 54 clerk of their request for a different,
subsequent date.

Having reviewed the moving and opposing papers, and the numerous discovery
requests that the parties dispute, it is apparent to the court that counsel must resume
the meet-and-confer process in good faith before drawing upon the court’s limited
resources. Counsel for the parties are thus ordered to resume the meet-and-confer
process in order to resolve or substantially narrow their discovery dispute.

In resuming the meet-and-confer process, the parties should be guided by the
observation(s) that: (1) RFP Nos. 1-12 are overbroad and vague and ambiguous as
they seek all documents “relating to” the “skill”, “effort” or “responsibility” required for
Plaintiff’s job or the “working conditions” for work on jobs; (2) the term “seniority
system” and “merit system” are not vague and ambiguous; (3) discovery regarding
other female associates is relevant and is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence as Plaintiff has alleged PAGA, however, privacy rights are implicated; (4)
discovery regarding male associates is relevant and is likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, however, privacy rights are implicated; (5) to the extent
Defendant contends documents are privileged, it must produce a privilege log; (6) to the extent Defendant contends that there are no non-privileged documents responsive
to a request, Defendant shall so state in the response.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person no later than October 29, 2013. After
thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every issue that
the motion currently encompasses, and no later than November 6, 2013, counsel shall
file a joint statement indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which
issues (if any) remain outstanding. For each outstanding issue, counsel shall set forth
in the joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities.
Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged.

Counsel are reminded that this court does not have the resources to tend to and
resolve every discovery issue that could have and should have been resolved
informally. (See Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 117 [“The very
purpose of an order to meet and confer is to obtain a negotiated resolution of a
discovery dispute without having to expend judicial time to sort out which party is
correct and what relief should be granted. What the court seeks is an agreement by
the parties which resolves the dispute”].)

Counsel are also reminded that this court has adopted, as part of its local rules, the
California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism, promulgated by the
State Bar of California. In particular, the court refers counsel to Sections 4, 6, 9 and
10. The court is bound to impose monetary sanctions against any party who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further discovery\line responses,
absent a substantial justification or other reason making the imposition of sanctions
unjust. The court may also impose sanctions for the failure to meet and confer in good
faith or otherwise misuse the discovery process. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§
2023.010-2023.030.)

The court will consider each side’s meet-and-confer efforts in deciding whether to
impose sanctions.

Item 13 2012-00134706-CU-OE

Yamin T Scardigli vs. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Interrogatory

Filed By: Gorham III, William J.

Plaintiff Yamin T. Scardigli’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory
No. 15.1 is ruled upon as follows.

This is an action for Denial of Equal Pay and Violation of B&P Code section 17200.
Plaintiff alleges that she was an employee of Defendant, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP. She alleges that Defendant paid women associates less than their male
counterparts.

Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 on Defendant which seeks facts,
witnesses and documents for each denial of material allegation and each special or
affirmative defense. On September 17, 2013, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel stating that it
would supplement its response. Accordingly to Plaintiff’s counsel, he did not receive
this letter and thus filed the instant motion on September 23, 2013. Defendant served
its supplemental response on October 8, 2013.

As an initial matter, the disagrees with Defendant that the motion is moot. A motion is
“made” when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) Because Plaintiff made the motion
before Defendant served its supplemental response, Plaintiff is entitled to a ruling. The
Court expresses no opinion about the sufficiency of responses served after the motion
was made.

The Court construes Defendant’s service of supplemental responses as a concession
to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. However,
because Defendant has served its supplemental responses, it need not re-serve them.

Both parties’ request for sanction is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.