Syrovoi vs. Lending 3, Inc.

completed, including the distribution of uncashed aggrieved employee checks after 180 days, that the Administrator’s work is complete, and that the court’s file thus may be closed. The parties must report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the aggrieved employees. All supporting papers must be filed at least 16 days before the Final Report Hearing date.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling to the LWDA and Defendant.

7 30-2024-01445740 Plaintiff Vitalii Syrovoi’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Syrovoi vs. Lending 3, Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, to Inc. Defendant Lending 3, Inc. (“L3I”), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, to Defendant PacWest Financial Services, Inc. (“PacWest”), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, to Defendant Andrea Park (“Park”), are GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED THAT within thirty (30) days of this ruling, Defendants L3I, PacWest and Park (collectively, “Defendants”), shall each: (1) provide to Plaintiff further, complete, code-compliant responses to each Request for Production in Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, including identifying any responsive documents; (2) produce all non-privileged, responsive documents to each request; and (3) to the extent Defendants withhold any responsive documents on the basis of privilege, Defendants shall provide a privilege log supporting the assertion of privilege.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, properly seek documents within the scope of this wage and hour class action concerning Plaintiff’s employment records, documents relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations in his Complaint, discovery relevant to class certification regarding putative class members and Defendants’ employment policies and practices, the relationship between corporate defendants, Defendants’ insurance policies and documents relied upon by Defendants in their other discovery responses. Defendants asserted boilerplate objections, failed to verify their responses, and did not produce any responsive documents. Defendants’ counsel also failed to respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s multiple attempts to meet and confer regarding the subject discovery.

Only after Plaintiff filed these Motions did Defendants provide verified responses and some documents.

Defendants claim that their belated discovery responses are adequately responsive and that these Motions are moot, but, as the court was not provided these supplemental further responses, the court cannot make that determination. However, Plaintiff states in reply that the supplemental production consisted of only 37 pages of documents, which were Plaintiff’s W-2s and Defendants’ employee handbook. Thus, it appears that the supplemental response remains deficient and are missing whole categories of the documents sought. Further, Defendants’ general objections of overbreadth, burden, proportionality, privacy, and privilege are unsupported by any facts and do not identify the basis for such objections for the discovery requests at issue. Based on the foregoing, further responses from Defendants are necessary to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One.