YOLANDA VARGAS VS GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6625 Hearing Date: August 6, 2021 Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Yolanda Vargas filed a motion to compel the depositions of Byron Rozul, Kenneth Vecherelli, Angel Marquez, Lucy Aguilar, Norma Valdez, and Defendant Golden State Water Company’s PMK. Plaintiff states she noticed the depositions of these witnesses but they failed to appear, and Defendant has not provided alternate deposition dates. Plaintiff states that the individuals are subject to the control of Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states the deposition notices are attached, but in fact no notices are attached.

Defendant filed a very late opposition two days before the hearing date. Defendant blames Plaintiff for the failure to schedule Defendant’s depositions.

This case is now more than four years old. The depositions should have been completed years ago.

The motion to compel the depositions is GRANTED. To the extent Byron Rozul, Kenneth Vecherelli, Angel Marquez, Lucy Aguilar, and Norma Valdez are employees, officers, directors, or agents of Defendant, Defendant is to make them available for depositions. In addition, Defendant is to make the PMK witness available for a deposition on the topics in the PMK deposition notice. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer on the phone within the next five days to schedule these depositions. If they cannot agree on dates, Plaintiff is to immediately notice the depositions to take place before September 10, 2021.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

Case Number: ****6625    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Plaintiff Yolanda Vargas served document requests on Defendant Golden State Water Company including request Nos. 24 and 25 seeking all documents referring to any investigation Defendant conducted into Angel Marquez and Del Webb. Plaintiff contends she complained about Marquez’ unlawful conduct against her, which Defendant investigated. Webb replaced Marquez and then allegedly engaged in unlawful conduct against Plaintiff.

Defendant objected that the requests are too broad because they are not limited to documents concerning investigations into Plaintiff’s complaints and would include investigations into complaints unrelated to the type of claims in this case. Defendant also objected that the requests seek attorney-client privileged and work product information.

The requests are broad enough to encompass investigations that do not appear relevant. For example, if Marquez or Webb were consistently late to work or stealing employer property, documents about investigations into those matters would not appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. But if other employees had complained about them engaging in gender discrimination or unfair discipline after returning from medical leave, the information could be relevant. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Nos. 24 and 25, limited to responsive documents concerning investigations into complaints about Marquez or Webb from female employees or employees complaining about unfair discipline after returning from medical leave.

Responsive documents are to be produced within 15 days of the date of this order. Defendant is to produce a privilege log listing all responsive documents that it is withholding based on attorney-client privilege or work product within 15 days of the date of this order.

In sum, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. The request for sanctions is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.