This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/15/2020 at 00:01:14 (UTC).

JOE ALLEN VS DEHUMIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC

Case Summary

On 10/20/2017 JOE ALLEN filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against DEHUMIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARC MARMARO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0514

  • Filing Date:

    10/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARC MARMARO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ALLEN JOE

Defendants and Respondents

DEHUMIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC.

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP

BEGAKIS CHRISTINA ELENI

GINDI JACK J.

ABRAMSON WILLIAM ZEV

ABRAMSON W ZEV

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MALONEY PATRICK M. ESQ.

LESTER DAVID M. ESQ.

COLLENDER MICHELE LYNN

LESTER DAVID M.

GARBACZ GREGORY

GARBACZ GREGORY A. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION

2/13/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OPPOSITION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #3

11/22/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #3

Notice of Ruling

11/1/2019: Notice of Ruling

Response - RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIO

10/21/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIO

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RFP3

10/25/2019: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RFP3

Separate Statement

6/5/2019: Separate Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

4/10/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Motion for Protective Ord...)

1/22/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Motion for Protective Ord...)

Trial Brief

1/22/2019: Trial Brief

Trial Brief

1/22/2019: Trial Brief

Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff Opposition to Motion in Limine

1/8/2019: Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff Opposition to Motion in Limine

Separate Statement - Separate Statement in support of a further response to plaintiff's special interrogatories

1/9/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement in support of a further response to plaintiff's special interrogatories

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time

12/21/2018: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1/5/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

2/5/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

2/8/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

2/22/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

3/22/2018: Minute Order -

86 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration In Support Opposition); Filed by Dehumidification Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition TO Mil No 5); Filed by Dehumidification Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Designation of Deposition Testimony of Brian Keith Gregg at Trial); Filed by Dehumidification Technologies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketMotion in Limine ( No. 5 to Exclude Irrelevant Character Evidence in the Deposition Transcript of Brian Gregg); Filed by Joe Allen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
118 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Joe Allen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Joe Allen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680514    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 1, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC680514

CASE NAME: Joe Allen v. Dehumidification Technologies, Inc., et al.

TRIAL DATE: December 10, 2019

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET THREE)

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Joe Allen

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Dehumidification Technologies

MOTION: Filed May 20, 2019

OPPOSITION: Filed October 21, 2019

REPLY: Filed October 25, 2019

TENTATIVE: The motion to compel further discovery responses is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Counsel for the moving party to provide notice.

BACKGROUND

This wrongful termination action arises in connection with Plaintiff Joe Allen (“Allen”)’s alleged employment with Defendant Dehumidification Technologies, LP (“DH Tech,” erroneously sued as Dehumidification Technologies, Inc). Plaintiff alleges that he began working for Defendant on or about February 9, 2015 and that his employment ended on or about March 10, 2017. According to Plaintiff, Defendant required him to operate trucks that required a Class A or Class B license, despite the fact that he only had a Class C Driver’s License, and to operate a forklift despite the fact that he was not certified to operate a forklift. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to train employees on hazardous energy control procedures and failed to provide employees with necessary personal protective equipment. Plaintiff allegedly filed a complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) regarding Defendant’s safety violations and allegedly illegal business practices.

On or about March 10, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly refused an order from Defendant to operate a forklift and informed his manager that he would not violate the law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated him on the same date for refusing to operate the forklift and in retaliation for filing a complaint with Cal/OSHA. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy and (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code, § 1102.5.

On January 22, 2019, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses in-part and ordered Defendant to serve substantive supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s request for production no. 64, along with all responsive documents, for all employees who operated its forklifts on or after January 1, 2015. (Minute Order, January 22, 2019.) In addition, the minute order states that the discovery cut-off was to remain in effect except as to the outstanding discovery as discussed this date and as to the unique and special knowledge of Kenneth Armstrong. (Ibid.)

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff served Requests for Production (Set Three) on Defendant by overnight mail. On March 26, 2019, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests via regular mail.

Plaintiff now moves this court for an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set Three) Nos. 71-78 and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,860.00.

MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel….  Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”  (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)  “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.”  (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, internal ellipses omitted.)  Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution, a particularly egregious failure may justify an immediate and outright denial of further discovery.  (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34, citing Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437.) 

In support of the subject motion, Plaintiff filed the Declaration of Christina Begakis. The Begakis Declaration states that on April 8, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s inadequate responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set Three), but that no response was ever received. (Begakis Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) This single meet and confer letter sent to Defendant’s Counsel approximately one month prior to the filing of this motion is insufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Discovery Act, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

On receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.) The moving party must also include reasons why further answers should be ordered: legal or factual arguments why the answers given were incomplete or nonresponsive, or the objections invalid. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code of Civ. Proc. 2030.300 § subd.(c))

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs moves this court for an order compelling Defendant to further respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set Three) Nos. 71-78. (Mot. at p. 4.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because (1) the discovery motion is untimely and (2) the subject discovery requests are not within the limited scope for which the 60-day extension was provided. Additionally, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $900.00 for Plaintiff’s counsel’s continuing discovery abuse.

As previously mentioned, on January 22, 2019 this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses in-part and ordered Defendant to serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production by February 12, 2018. (Minute Order, January 22, 2019.) In addition, the minute order for that hearing specifically provided that “[d]iscovery cut-off to remain in effect except as to the outstanding discovery as discussed this date and as to the unique and special knowledge of Kenneth Armstrong.” (Ibid.) Based on Plaintiff’s Notice of Ruling, the discovery cut-off for the identified discovery was extended for 60 days starting from January 22, 2019. (Begakis Decl., Exh. A.) However, plaintiff’s notice of ruling, which was apparently not filed with the court, is inconsistent with the minute order which says nothing about a 60-day extension for other discovery.

Moreover, the minute order said nothing about reopening the timing for filing motions to compel, which had already expired at the time of the order. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is not timely.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production (Set Three) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.