Case Number: BC523997??? Hearing Date: August 16, 2016??? Dept: 56
Case Name: Leyva v. Patina Restaurant Group
Case No.: BC523997
Matter: Plaintiff?s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery
Tentative Ruling: Motions are denied; no sanctions are awarded.
Plaintiff Jacob Leyva filed this employment action against Defendant Patina Restaurant Group. The complaint asserts various FEHA causes of action, including disability discrimination, and failure to accommodate. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff?s 3d Set of Requests for Admissions (Nos. 43-50), and 2d set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 45-51). Both motions are denied, for the following reasons:
1. The motions are procedurally defective. The RPD motion does not have a separate statement in compliance with CRC 3.1345. The RFA motion does not show that Plaintiff conducted an adequate meet and confer process in compliance with CCP ?2016.040.
2. Plaintiff has not demonstrated his entitlement to further responses. RFA Nos. 43-50 seek admissions concerning Defendant?s policies for rehiring a seasonal employees; the meaning of ?policy? is neither defined nor clear from the context of the requests. RPDs Nos. 45-49 seek job descriptions for Plaintiff and two identified employees; Defendant asserted objections but stated that responsive documents would be produced. RPD Nos. 50-51 seek Defendant?s policies concerning discrimination and progressive discipline; the meaning of ?policy? is neither defined nor clear, but Defendant served amended responses stating that its employee handbook discusses discrimination and it has no progressive discipline policy.
Defendant has requested sanctions, but no sanctions are awarded in light of Defendant?s amended responses served after the motions were filed.