JENNIFER LARSEN vs. SHIRLEY DERNER, ET AL.

CV2202928

This 45-day limit is a statutory deadline. Once the period runs without a timely motion or a written extension, the Court is without authority to order a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The clock runs from service of the verified response. A response containing both substantive responses and objections must be verified before the 45-day period begins to run. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127.) Responses containing only objections are not required to be verified, but Golf & Tennis did not fully resolve how the 45-day deadline applies to an objections-only response.

The main issue here is timeliness. The discovery was exchanged in December 2022, with verified responses. The clock started, and it expired at some point likely in early 2023. Defendant argues that the motion is three years too late and there is no written agreement to either extend the discovery or keep the response deadline open, indefinitely. Plaintiff agrees that there is no written agreement memorializing any such extension.

The court acknowledges that there may have been confusion relative to whether there was an extension granted because Plaintiff was represented by several lawyers, and the insurer substituted coverage counsel. These type of representation issues magnify the importance of memorializing agreements and keeping an accurate client file.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 7 and 18 is DENIED as untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c). The denial is without prejudice. Plaintiff may choose to re-tailor her requests directed at the insurance information she seeks, and the court hopes to avoid further conflict on the same issue raised. Plaintiff may not re-propound the identical Requests Nos. 7 and 18, or materially duplicative requests, for the purpose of reviving the expired deadline.

Sanctions are not warranted given the number of law firms that have touched the file for both parties, causing genuine confusion about discovery deadlines.

This case should now be ready for a trial date, which will be set at the next Case Management Conference currently scheduled for September 21, 2026.

The parties should anticipate a February 2027, trial date.

Plaintiff to prepare the order.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

CV2202928

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

CV2202928

5. The release is narrowed to include all claims for civil penalties under the PAGA during the PAGA period.

6. Funds available after claims administration is proposed to be directed to the State of California’s Unclaimed Property Fund (or other recipient as directed by the Court).

7. Cost of settlement administration shall be up to $4,250 of the settlement fund; 8. Enhancement/Service Awards to Plaintiff: Defendant will not oppose the application for Representative Enhancement of up to $2,500 for each Plaintiff, to be paid from the settlement fund; 9. Fees and Costs: Defendant will not oppose Counsel’s application for fees of up to one third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Amount (currently estimated to be $55,833.33). Counsel’s stated lodestar is 116,155.00. The requested cost recovery of $18,000 is also preliminarily approved.

Counsel to appear to explain why the State is slotted to receive a larger recovery than the aggrieved workers.

The parties shall meet and confer to determine a more appropriate recipient of residue funds other than the state common fund. As stated in the unopposed motion for approval, the public policy purpose of PAGA is to enhance the state's ability to enforce labor laws by deputizing private citizens to act as law enforcement proxies). “[A] trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (See Moniz v.

Adecco USA, Inc., 72 Cal. App. 5th 56, 77 (2021) (emphasis added); see also Kang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2021 WL 5826230, at *15 (N.D. Cal., 2021) (evaluating a PAGA settlement under the standard of whether the settlement terms “are fundamentally fair, reasonable, a nd adequate in view of PAGA’s public policy goals”)).

Here, the settlement vindicates the rights of Aggrieved Employees who are alleged to have experienced possible wage and hour violations under the PAGA. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to discuss an award of the residual settlement to a non-profit organization or collegiate educational program with a mission statement more closely aligned to the policy objective of PAGA.

The settlement expressly provides for its enforcement pursuant to Cal. Civil Code of Procedure §664.6, with a prevailing party fee provision.

Appearances are required to discuss the fund residue. The notice documents shall be updated because this issue is unresolved.

Plaintiff to submit the final preliminary order for entry.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have

CV2202928

been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).