KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 03/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 54

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 produce documents identified at his deposition 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.

On July 9, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition, with the deposition scheduled for August 23, 2024. The deposition notice included 25 requests for Plaintiff to produce documents at the deposition. On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff served objections to the deposition notice, which included objections to each document request. Plaintiff’s responses to most of the document requests stated that, subject to the objections, he would produce all nonprivileged, responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.

Plaintiff’s deposition proceeded as scheduled on August 23, 2024. Defendant contends that Plaintiff identified several responsive documents that he did not produce. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff testified that he reviewed his “journal entries” in preparation for his

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 03/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 54

deposition. On September 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiff’s document production and asked Plaintiff to produce the responsive documents Plaintiff identified in his testimony but did not produce as well as his journal entries. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a responsive letter stating that he would “aim to produce” the responsive documents identified but not produced, but he would not produce the journal entries. (Rediger Decl., Exh. F.) On October 2, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a second meet and confer letter. Defendant’s counsel sent a follow up email on October 9, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. Defendant filed the present motion on November 22, 2024.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not produced any additional documents despite the representation in counsel’s September 30 letter that he would “aim to produce” certain documents. However, Plaintiff’s opposition shows that Plaintiff’s counsel sent some of the documents on October 8, 2024. (Bhatia Decl., ¶ 11, Exh. G.) Subsequently, on March 12, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a portion of the journal entries, and on March 13, 2025, he sent additional responsive documents. (Bhatia Decl., ¶¶ 12-13, Exh. J.) Defendant’s reply indicates that it still seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to produce the entirety of the journal entries and any documents related to Plaintiff’s alleged emotional injuries suffered from 2019 to the present.

Plaintiff contends that the motion is untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of completion of the deposition record. Defendant contends that the deposition record was not completed until the time for Plaintiff to review the transcript and make changes expired. As noted above, the deposition was held on August 23, 2024. On September 6, 2024, the court reporter sent the parties the transcript with the errata sheet. The court reporter’s letter stated, “If the errata sheet is not submitted within 30 days from the date of this memorandum, the transcript will be deemed correct.” (Bhatia Decl., Exh.

E, emphasis in original.) On October 9, 2024, the court reporter sent the sealed original transcript to Defendant’s counsel and noted that the errata and signature sheets had not been returned. (Rediger Decl., Exh. H.) Defendant filed this motion on November 22, 2024. Plaintiff contends that the 60-day period commenced on September 6, 2024, the date the court reporter made the transcript available to the parties. Defendant contends that the 60-day period did not commence until October 9, 2024, the date the court reporter sent the sealed transcript upon the expiration of Plaintiff’s time to review and make changes.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(a) provides, “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(a).) Such a motion “shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).) The question is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 03/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Department 54

thus when the record of the deposition became complete within the meaning of this provision.

There appears to be no published opinion on this precise issue. According to a leading treatise, “It is unclear whether the deposition record is ‘completed’ when the reporter sends notice that the transcript is available for review or only after the expiration of time to sign or correct the transcript. The safer course is to use the date of the reporter’s notice.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 8:801, emphasis in original.) In this context, the Court agrees with Weil & Brown’s view that the more appropriate commencement date is the date the reporter sends notice that the transcript is available for review.

A court reporter’s certification certifies “that the deponent was duly sworn and that the transcript or recording is a true record of the testimony given.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.540(a).) While a deponent may later “change the form or the substance of an answer to a question, and may either approve the transcript of the deposition by signing it, or refuse to approve the transcript by not signing it” (Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.520(b)), the transcript transcribed and certified by the reporter is, pursuant to section 2025.540, a “true record of the testimony given.” Additionally, the 30-day signing period may be shortened or extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2025.520(b), (c).) It would be unusual for the parties to be able to alter by agreement the date a statutory time period commences, as opposed to the date it ends. For instance, a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be made within 45 days of service of the verified responses, or a later date agreed to by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) Thus, the parties can agree to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, but not the date the 45-day period commences.

Here, Defendant’s motion was filed on November 22, 2024, more than 60 days after the court reporter certified the transcript and send notice to Plaintiff that it was ready for review. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED as untimely.

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., ¶ 14.) 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.)