KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 03/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 54

Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Natura Management, LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff Noah Kipper (“Plaintiff”) to serve further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One is ruled upon as follows.

This is an employment action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is in the business of supply chain management for cannabis companies and offers services such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and delivery of cannabis related products. Plaintiff alleges that during his employment with Defendant, he was required to engage in fraudulent and illegal testing protocols to enhance the potency and purity readings of Defendant’s cannabis plants. Plaintiff alleges that was terminated after he raised concerns about these protocols.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 7, 2024 and alleged eight causes of action. However, on March 12, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed the first six causes of action, all of which were based on FEHA. The two remaining causes of action are for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Defendant served the subject discovery on August 28, 2024. Plaintiff served his responses on October 8, 2024. On October 15, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a meet-andconfer letter, which requested a response by October 18. On October 21, Plaintiff’s counsel asked for an extension to October 25 to respond to the letter. On October 28, Defendant’s counsel sent a follow up noting that he had not received any response. At 5:32 p.m. later that day, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email stating that he was “working with our client to get the information needed” and indicated that a response would be provided by October 30. (Bhatia

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 03/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 54

Decl., Exh. E.) On October 30, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel saying he had reviewed the meet-and-confer letter and requested to discuss the issues over the phone. Defendant’s counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s last two emails. Defendant filed the present motion on November 22, 2024, over three weeks after the last meet-and-confer correspondence was exchanged.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to sufficiently meet and confer before filing this motion. The Court agrees. “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) “This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.’” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) “This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Ibid.) The meet and confer requirement demands “that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id. at p. 1439.)

One court has described some of the relevant factors the trial court can consider when evaluating the sufficiency of a meet and confer declaration:

A single letter, followed by a response which refuses concessions, might in some instances be an adequate attempt at informal resolution, especially when a legitimate discovery objective is demonstrated. The time available before the motion filing deadline, and the extent to which the responding party was complicit in the lapse of available time, can also be relevant. An evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered.

Although some effort is required in all instances (see, e.g., Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1438 [no exception based on speculation that prospects for informal resolution may be bleak]), the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success. These are considerations entrusted to the trial court's discretion and judgment, with due regard for all relevant circumstances.

(Obergon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433.)

Here, Defendant’s counsel sent a single letter, one week after the responses were served, and asked for a response three days later. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel was not prompt in his efforts to respond to the letter or request more time to respond. Even so, by October 30, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he was prepared to discuss the issues raised in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 03/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 54

letter and requested a phone call. Defendant’s counsel did not respond, and instead let over three weeks pass before filing this motion. Given Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to discuss the matter over the phone, as well as Plaintiff’s counsel’s statement on October 28 that he was in contact with his client to obtain additional information, it seems likely that further efforts would have been fruitful in resolving some or all of the disputes raised in the letter. Defendant’s counsel’s unexplained failure to respond to Plaintiff’s last two emails, despite the significant delay before the motion was ultimately filed, supports the conclusion that Defendant’s meet and confer efforts were inadequate.

The Court also finds it relevant that Plaintiff had filed his own motions to compel further responses on September 11, 2024 in relation to Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s initial written discovery. Notably, on December 26, 2024, the Court denied two of the three motions on the basis that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer. Thus, while the parties were meeting and conferring for this motion, and when this motion was filed, Plaintiff had pending motions on calendar where he had also insufficiently met and conferred. Given this context, Defendant’s motions can be seen as a tit-for-tat response to Plaintiff’s motions.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED for failure to adequately meet and confer.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED since the motion was unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,000, representing two hours at $500 per hour. (See Bhatia Decl., ¶ 10.) Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and its counsel jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid by no later than April 25, 2025, and if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.