This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 13:50:16 (UTC).

ALFREDO MARTINEZ ET AL VS SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/01/2017 ALFREDO MARTINEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DALILA CORRAL LYONS, BARBARA A. MEIERS, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS, TERESA A. BEAUDET and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0461

  • Filing Date:

    08/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DALILA CORRAL LYONS

BARBARA A. MEIERS

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS

TERESA A. BEAUDET

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PAGE JUSTIN

MARTINEZ ALFREDO

Defendants and Respondents

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 10

EDISON INTERNATIONAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HARRISON TODD H. ESQ.

PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN ET AL. APC

ALDER LAW

PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN & HARRISON APC

LAW ALDER

ALDER C MICHAEL

HARRISON TODD HAMILTON

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WASSERMAN HELENE J. ESQ.

LITTLER MENDELSON PC

PC LITTLER MENDELSON

HUEY BRIAN GABRIEL MENDOZA

 

Court Documents

Unknown

3/23/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/9/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/27/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

10/26/2017: Minute Order

DEFENDANT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY DISQUALIFICATION OF THE HONORABLE YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170.6

10/24/2017: DEFENDANT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY DISQUALIFICATION OF THE HONORABLE YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170.6

Proof of Service by Mail

1/16/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order

2/13/2019: Minute Order

Request for Judicial Notice

11/15/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

11/15/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

1/11/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/19/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE RE NOTICE OF CASE MANGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/12/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE RE NOTICE OF CASE MANGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/5/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/20/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/31/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/16/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

8/9/2017: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) HARASSMENT BASED ON SEX AND/OR GENDER IN VIOLATION OF THE FE HA; ETC

8/1/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) HARASSMENT BASED ON SEX AND/OR GENDER IN VIOLATION OF THE FE HA; ETC

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/06/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (and Production to Plaintiff Alfredo Martinez's Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Sets No. Two;) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (and Production to Plaintiff Justin Page's Requests for Production of Documents) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by Southern California Edison Company (Defendant); Edison International (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses and P...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:35 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (and Production to Plaintiff Justin Page's Requests for Production of Documents) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:35 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (and Production to Plaintiff Alfredo Martinez's Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Sets No. Two;) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (and Production to Plaintiff Alfredo Martinez's Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Sets No. Two;) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
92 More Docket Entries
  • 08/16/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • at 3:30 PM in Department 20; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Case is reassigned) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-08-09 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Alfredo Martinez (Plaintiff); Justin Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2017
  • PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Alfredo Martinez (Plaintiff); Justin Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) HARASSMENT BASED ON SEX AND/OR GENDER IN VIOLATION OF THE FE HA; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC670461    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 47

Alfredo Martinez, et al. v. Southern California Edison Company, et al.

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO TAKE 47 ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Edison International

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Alfredo Martinez and Justin Page

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a wrongful termination case. Plaintiffs allege harassment based on sex and/or gender, retaliation, and related claims.

Defendants move for a protective order re: Plaintiffs’ request to take 47 additional depositions. Plaintiffs move to seal exhibits lodged conditionally under seal in support of their opposition.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Edison International’s motion for protective order re: Plaintiffs’ request to take 47 additional depositions is CONTINUED to February 25, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to give Plaintiffs the opportunity to decide whether to withdraw the documents they lodged conditionally under seal.

THE COURT WILL CONDUCT A MANDATORY INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AT TOMMORROW’S HEARING REGARDING THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. THIS IDC WILL BE HELD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SEAL. COUNSEL WITH PERSONAL KNOWEGDE OF THE ISSUES CONCERING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ARE TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT AT TOMORROW’S IDC

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal exhibits filed in support of their opposition per the parties’ stipulated protective order is DENIED.

Plaintiffs may formally withdraw any of the documents lodged conditionally under seal within 10 days of this ruling. (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(6).) If there is no such withdrawal within this time period, all such documents shall be “unsealed” and placed in the public record. If the documents are unsealed, this Court will review and consider them, as relevant, for purposes of the continued motion for a protective order.

Any documents that are timely and formally withdrawn by the lodging party will not be considered for purposes of the continued motion.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Protective Order

In light of Plaintiffs’ unsuccessful motion to seal certain documents filed with their opposition, this motion is CONTINUED to February 25, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

Motion To Seal

Plaintiffs move to seal Exhibits L through FF, HH and II submitted with their opposition to this motion.

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (CRC 2.550.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ sole argument in their memorandum of points and authorities is that any confidential documents filed with the Court must be filed under seal pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. However, this Court “cannot rely solely on an agreement or stipulation of the parties as the basis for permitting records to be filed under seal.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600 (bold emphasis and underlining added).)

A motion seeking an order sealing the record must be accompanied by “a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1).) A court may order that a record be filed under seal “only if it expressly finds facts that establish” all of the following:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

(CRC 2.550(d).)

Here, the declaration submitted by Plaintiffs does not satisfy this standard. In fact, it does not appear that the Declaration of Attorney Brennan S. Kahn addressed any of these factors.

Accordingly, the motion to seal the record is DENIED.

Plaintiffs may formally withdraw any of the documents lodged conditionally under seal within 10 days of this ruling. (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(6).) If there is no such withdrawal within this time period, all such documents shall be “unsealed” and placed in the public record. If the documents are unsealed, this Court will review and consider them, as relevant, for purposes of the pending motion for a protective order.

Any documents that are timely and formally withdrawn by the lodging party will not be considered for purposes of the pending motion.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org