2017-00212136-CU-WT

Corey Williams vs. JCM Partners, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Schapiro, Larry

Plaintiff Corey Williams’ motion to compel Defendant JCM Partners, LLC’s further

responses to special interrogatories is ruled upon as follows.

This is an employment discrimination/constructive termination action based on race, color and national origin. Plaintiff, who is African America, alleges that he and other African-Americans were constructively discharged and replaced with Hispanics, mostly employees from Mexico.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s separate statement does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1345(c). The motion also fails to specifically identify the interrogatories at issue as required by CRC Rule 3.1345(d). However, given that only 2 interrogatories are at issue, the Court will rule on the merits of the motion.

At issue are for the following special interrogatories:

Special Interrogatory 105: Provide the number of renovation workers and their ethnicity during the last month of Plaintiff’s employment for Defendants.

Special Interrogatory 107: Provide the number of renovation worker supervisors and their ethnicity during the last month of Plaintiff’s employment for Defendants.

Defendant responded:

JCM objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound as phrased. JCM objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the intended scope of the phrase “renovation workers”. JCM objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and calls for speculation. JCM objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the

subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. JCM objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it would require making a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of documents; such compilation, abstract, audit, or summary does not presently exist; and the burden or expense of preparing such would be substantially the same for the propounding party as for the responding party. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2030.230.) Without waiving these objections and subject to them, JCM responds as follows: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, JCM refers Plaintiff to the employee roster previously produced for October 2016, as well as the voluntary EEOC reporting forms filled out by employees when they are hired for information responsive to this interrogatory. The employee roster contains the names and job titles of all JCM employees as of the last

day of October 2016. The voluntary reporting forms contain the names and ethnicity of each employee, to the extent they volunteer to provide

the information.

Plaintiff complains that the produced employee roster does not include any information regarding the employee’s race, thus, the employee roster is not responsive. Plaintiff further insists that Defendant’s response is “deceptive” because Ms. Virma Melero, Defendant’s Human Resources Director, testified the information was included in Defendant’s “payroll records,” and that Defendant did not include its payroll records in response to special interrogatory no. 6 which requested the identification of documents “which contain the races of hourly employees of Defendant JCM Partners, LLC. . .”

In opposition, Defendant advances that its response invoking CCP §2030.230 is sufficient. According to Defendant:

The employee roster contains the names, job titles, dates of hire, work location, and supervisor information for all JCM employees as of the last day of October 2016. The voluntary reporting forms contain the names and ethnicity of each employee, to the extent they volunteer to provide the information. By matching the information in the EEO forms to the employee roster. Plaintiff can ascertain the ethnicities of the renovation employees who were employed as of the last day of October 2016. JCM has also previously provided EEO-1 reports for each year of Plaintiff’s employment. These reports set forth the total number of employees in each job category (e.g. laborers, craft workers, administrative support, and professionals), categorized by race and ethnicity. All of the information Plaintiff seeks is contained within these documents.

(Opposition, 4:2-10.) The Court agrees with Defendant that its response is sufficient. Notably, Plaintiff’s motion is silent with regards to Defendant’s invocation of CCP §2030.230. Nor is the Court convinced by Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s response is “deceptive.” Here, Defendant has expressly explained how the employee roster must be cross-referenced with the EEO forms in order to determine the ethnicity of the employee.

Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

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

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(A). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact Defendant’s counsel forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact Defendant’s counsel prior to hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone,

in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(A).

Item 10 2017-00212136-CU-WT

Corey Williams vs. JCM Partners, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for

Filed By: Schapiro, Larry

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing party of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. The parties are also reminded that pursuant to local court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Plaintiff Corey Williams’ motion to compel Defendant JCM Partners, LLC’s further responses to requests for production (sets five and six) is DENIED for the following reasons:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to set six is untimely. Here, Defendant served its verified responses on July 25, 2018. According to Defendant, Plaintiff did not request an extension and she did not grant one. (Declaration of Allison Nye, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff filed and serve this motion on October 2, 2018, passed the 45 deadline to file a motion to compel.

(2) The motion fails to specifically identify the requests at issue as required by CRC Rule 3.1345(d). (CRC Rule 3.1345(d) [“A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”].) Here, Plaintiff’s points and authorities only mentions request nos. 160, 162, 163, 229, and 230. However, Plaintiff’s separate statement identifies request nos. 160-164, 174-179, 182, 229, 230, 249-251, and 261-266. Thus, it is entirely unclear to the Court which requests are at issue here and whether Defendant has properly been placed on notice.

(3) Plaintiff’s separate statement fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1345(c).

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

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(A). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact Defendant’s counsel forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact Defendant’s counsel prior to

hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(A).