KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 12/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

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

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

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 served the subject Form Interrogatories, Set One, on June 13, 2024. The interrogatories consisted of both general and employment form interrogatories. Defendant served its verified responses on July 16, 2024. On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter and demanded a response by August 29, 2024. On August 28, 2024, the parties agreed to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the meet-and-confer letter to September 5 and to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel to September 11, 2024.

On September 5, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a responsive meet-and-confer letter in which he offered to serve supplemental responses to certain employment form interrogatories in a limited fashion. Regarding Plaintiff’s general form interrogatories, Defendant’s counsel asserted that Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter failed to adequately address Defendant’s objections and thus did not constitute a reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer. There is no indication that Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the letter before filing this motion on September 11, 2024.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer before filing this motion. The Court disagrees. The adequacy of a party’s meet-and-confer efforts differs in every case, and there is no set number of letters or phone calls that must be made to satisfy the requirement. (See Obergon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432-433.) The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have sent only one letter, and the letter was sent over a month after the responses were received and thus near the deadline to file a motion. However, the Court finds this sufficient given the nature of Defendant’s responses and the positions taken in Defendant’s counsel’s responsive letter, issues which are addressed below.

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 12/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

Plaintiff served standard, Judicial Council-approved form interrogatories. Defendant served responses that consisted of objections that appear intended only to obstruct Plaintiff’s discovery efforts. In response to No. 3.7, which seeks information regarding licensing of Defendant’s business, Defendant objected based on relevance and refused to provide any information. This interrogatory is clearly relevant and requires a substantive response. In response to Nos. 12.1- 12.7, 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2, 16.1-16.6, and 16.9, Defendant objected that the interrogatories were vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, and overbroad because Plaintiff did not check a box on the instructions of the interrogatories to define the term “INCIDENT,” and Defendant again failed to provide any information.

Plaintiff’s failure to check one of the boxes to define “INCIDENT” does not excuse Defendant from responding to the extent reasonably possible. Further, the two options for the definition of “INCIDENT” are either the standard definition drafted by the Judicial Council or a definition supplied by the propounding party. That Plaintiff did not supply a separate definition means that Defendant could have read the interrogatories to use the Judicial Council definition. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to the interrogatories discussed in this paragraph.

Regarding Nos. 17.1 and 217.1, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s separate statement with respect to these interrogatories does not comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1345(c), as it does not include Defendant’s responses to these interrogatories. Plaintiff also provided little analysis in his separate statement for these interrogatories and did not address any particular objections. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to answer all subparts, but that is not accurate. (See Bhatia Decl., Exh. B, pp. 25-44 of responses to general form rogs, pp. 29-49 of responses to employment form rogs.)

Plaintiff also moves to compel further response to No. 201.2, which asks whether any facts that would support Plaintiff’s termination were first discovered after the termination, and if so, to state the facts, state when and how they were learned, identify persons with knowledge of the facts, and identify documents evidencing the facts. Defendant objected that the interrogatory was premature but responded by stating that Plaintiff did not perform all job duties satisfactorily and providing some examples.

This is not responsive to the interrogatory, as it does not answer the threshold yes-or-no question and does not answer subparts (b)-(d) with respect to how and when the facts were learned and the identities of witnesses and documents. It also does not appear responsive to subpart (a), as it appears to list facts that were known to Defendant at the time of Plaintiff’s termination. Accordingly, a further response is warranted, and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to No. 201.2.

No. 201.6 asks whether any person has performed any of Plaintiff’s former job duties since his termination, and if so to identify the person(s), identify the duties, and state the date the person(s) started to perform the duties. Defendant objected on three grounds: (1) relevance; (2) violation of third-party privacy rights; and (3) improper attempt to obtain employment records without providing notice to the employee. Defendant did not provide any information after asserting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 12/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

these objections. Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. The information sought is clearly discoverable. The identity of any person who has completed Plaintiff’s former job duties could certainly be relevant to a host of issues, including whether Defendant’s stated reasons for Plaintiff’s termination were pretextual, or whether Plaintiff was replaced with a less qualified person. Regarding third-party privacy, witness contact information is generally not subject to significant privacy protections. (Puerto v.

Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249.) Even if it were, that would not permit Defendant to refuse to disclose the individuals’ names, and if they are to be represented by counsel then Defendant can direct in its response that they can be contacted through counsel’s office. Regarding notice to the employees, Defendant cites no authority for this objection, and the Court assumes the objection refers to the notice requirements for document subpoenas under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6.

This statute is clearly not applicable here, since Plaintiff is not seeking documents through this interrogatory. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to No. 201.6 is GRANTED.

Nos. 215.1 and 215.2 mirror Nos. 12.2 and 12.3 in that they seek information about any interviews conducted or statements obtained from individuals concerning the allegations in the Complaint. Defendant responded by objecting based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Defendant has failed to justify these objections and they are thus OVERRULED. The interrogatories do not seek the contents of any communications, so attorney-client privilege does not apply. Regarding attorney work product, Defendant has not shown that its counsel expended any significant effort interviewing or obtaining statements from any witnesses, or that counsel’s thoughts and impressions would be revealed by revealing the witnesses that were interviewed. (See Coito v.

Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501-502 [list of witnesses interviewed or from whom statements were obtained by counsel typically not subject to work product protection, and burden is on objecting party to make foundational showing that disclosing the list would reveal counsel’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case or would result in opposing counsel taking advantage of counsel’s industry and efforts].) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 215.1 and 215.2.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 3.7, 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2, 16.1-16.6, 16.9, 201.2, 201.6, 215.1, and 215.2. Plaintiff’s motion is DENEID as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 17.1 and 217.1.

The parties’ dueling sanctions requests are DENIED, as the Court finds the motion and opposition were made with substantial justification.

Where the motion to compel is granted, Defendant shall serve verified further responses by no later than January 23, 2025, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 12/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

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.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 12/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.