Kara Sterritt vs. Centerfolds Gold Club

34-2021-00300185-CU-OE-GDS: Kara Sterritt vs. Centerfolds Gold Club 07/11/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

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

34-2021-00300185-CU-OE-GDS: Kara Sterritt vs. Centerfolds Gold Club 07/11/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Kara Sterritt and Essence Dews’ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Deponent Gerald Glazer (“Deponent”) to answer deposition questions and request for sanctions is DENIED.

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 them 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.

This employment action arises out of Plaintiffs’ alleged employment with Centerfolds Dancers Inc., dba Centerfolds Gold Club (“Defendant”).

In pertinent part, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a notice of deposition of “person(s) most knowledgeable” on January 26, 2024. (Declaration of Crystal F. Mohsin (“Mohsin Decl.”) ¶4, Exh. B.) The deposition notice also requested the production of documents related to the topics of examination of the deponent designated by Defendant. On January 26, 2024, Deponent appeared for deposition. (Mohsin Decl. ¶6, Exh. B.) At deposition, Defendant’s counsel objected to several questions and instructed Deponent not to answer. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant failed to produce documents requested with the notice of deposition.

Plaintiffs now move to compel Deponent to answer questions asked of him for which he was instructed not to answer and to compel the production of documents Plaintiffs indicate were not produced. Defendant opposes.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED for failure to meet and confer as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2). A motion to compel a deposition answer “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration,” unless the noticed party fails to attend the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450, subd. (b)(2) [emphasis added].) The meet-andconfer declaration “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.) “A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) “Argument is not the same as informal negotiation,” and “debate over the appropriateness of an objection, interspersed between rounds of further interrogation, does not constitute an earnest attempt to resolve impasses in discovery.” (Id. at 1437-1438.)

Instead, “‘[t]he parties must present to each

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00300185-CU-OE-GDS: Kara Sterritt vs. Centerfolds Gold Club 07/11/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition in Department 53

other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity and support during informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions. Only after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all available information, can there be a “sincere” effort to resolve the matter.’” (Id. at 1435.)

Here, the declaration of Crystal F. Mohsin fails to attest to any meet and confer efforts. (See generally, Moshin Decl.) Indeed, Defendant avers that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer at any time prior to the filing of the instant motion. (Declaration of Ryan Krueger (“Krueger Decl.”) ¶10.) Plaintiffs' assertion in reply that they properly met and conferred at deposition is insufficient based on the evidence cited. The citations to the deposition amount to no more than “bickering” and “argument” “between rounds of further interrogation” Townshed found to be insufficient for meet-and-confer purposes. Plaintiffs failed to properly meet and confer and failed to provide the requisite meet-and-confer declaration required by Code. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED for failure to comply with mandatory meet-and-confer requirements.

Both Parties’ request for sanctions is DENIED. The Court did not reach the merits of the motion and thus did not determine whether the motion/opposition was substantially justified.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)