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 Request for Production of Documents 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 Request for Production of Documents, 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 Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on June 13, 2024. 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 asserted that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to separately address Defendant’s objections in his letter. Defendant’s counsel also further asserted that Plaintiff’s requests suffered from improper form. 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 agrees that Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts with respect to the requests for production of documents were insufficient. “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, emphasis added.) Here, although the Court has found that Plaintiff’s efforts were sufficient with respect to the form interrogatories, the same cannot be said about Plaintiff’s efforts as to the requests for production of documents.

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a single letter more than one month after receiving Defendant’s responses with the motion deadline approaching. In its discussion of Defendant’s responses to the requests for production of documents, Plaintiff’s counsel simply restated the requests and each response before making a brief, essentially boilerplate argument that stated, in

24CV002343: KIPPER vs NATURA MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA NATURA 12/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

full:

Defendant’s foregoing objections are: 1) specious; 2) non-sensical; and 3) evasive. These objections are plainly gamesmanship, which is highly discouraged by the courts. (See Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355 (discovery (discovery system “intended to take the ‘game’ element out of the trial preparation.”)) Further, Failure [sic] to respond to discovery requests, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are “misuses of the discovery process” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)-(f).)

Demand is hereby made that Defendant responds to the foregoing requests and any privileged documents should be categorized via a Privilege Log.

(Bhatia Decl., Exh. C, p. 5, emphasis in original.)

No analysis of any individual requests or objections was provided. Plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to clarify the requests in response to the objections Defendant asserted, even though many of the objections were based on the form of the requests, so clarification from Plaintiff’s counsel may have resolved any perceived ambiguities. Further, what separates Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts with respect to the requests for production of document compared to that with respect to the form interrogatories is the relative complexity of the requests for production of documents.

These are not standard, Judicial Council-approved form interrogatories. They are comprehensive requests for production of documents that seek broad categories of documents related to key issues in the case. Thus, in order for Plaintiff to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement with respect to these requests, Plaintiff’s counsel needed to separately address these issues as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED for failure to adequately meet and confer.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED since the motion to compel was unsuccessful. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,090, representing two hours at $545 per hour. (See Rediger Decl., ¶ 5.) Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid by no later than January 23, 2025, and if not paid by that date, Defendant 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.)

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 Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

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 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.