Court Opinion

ID: 9894164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:04:04.474669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:53.944631
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/31/23 Perez v. California Herbal Remedies CA2/4

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                       DIVISION FOUR

SARAH PEREZ,                                                    B321576

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. 21STCV14519)
         v.

CALIFORNIA HERBAL
REMEDIES, LLC,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Affirmed in part,
dismissed in part.
     Gustavo Lamanna for Defendant and Appellant.
     Moon & Yang, Kane Moon, Allen Feghali, and Edwin
Kamarzarian for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       Appellant California Herbal Remedies, Inc. (CHR)1 appeals
from an order compelling discovery responses and an
accompanying award of monetary sanctions in favor of
respondent Sarah Perez, a former employee. CHR contends that
the trial court erred in ordering it to provide names and contact
information of employees for the purposes of class notice. CHR
further contends that it acted with substantial justification in
opposing Perez’s motions to compel, and therefore that the
$10,000 sanctions order was an abuse of discretion.
       We do not reach the substance of CHR’s challenge to the
discovery order, as that order is not appealable and CHR did not
seek writ relief. As for the sanctions order, CHR has made no
showing of substantial justification in opposing the motions to
compel. We therefore dismiss the portion of the appeal related to
the order compelling discovery and affirm the trial court’s
sanctions order.
           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.     Complaint
       CHR owns a retail store licensed to sell cannabis in Los
Angeles, California. Perez alleges that she was employed by
CHR “as a storefront hostess, sales associate, and cultivation
maintenance worker” from approximately November 2020 to
January 2021.
       Perez filed a class action complaint against CHR in April
2021. She ultimately filed the operative second amended class

1      CHR was originally sued as California Herbal Remedies,
LLC. Perez filed an amendment in November 2021 to correct the
name to California Herbal Remedies, Inc. Although CHR
identified itself as the corporation in its notice of appeal, its
briefing on appeal refers to both names.

                                2
and representative action complaint (SAC) in December 2021.
The SAC alleged claims for failure to pay minimum wages and
other violations of the California Labor Code, a claim for unfair
business practices, and a claim for civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).
Perez brought the lawsuit on behalf of herself and a putative
class of employees who worked for CHR as “hourly-paid non-
exempt” employees between April 2017 and the date when class
notice was sent.
II.    Discovery and Motion to Compel
       At the initial status conference on October 13, 2021, the
court ordered the parties to proceed with the Belaire-West
process.2 The court made the same order at another conference
on December 2, 2021. CHR did not comply.
       Perez propounded a set of five special interrogatories and a
set of six requests for production of documents on CHR in
December 2021, seeking class information, such as the names
and contact information for all putative class members, as well as
the employee handbook and her personnel file. In January 2022,
CHR served responses containing only objections, including more

2      As discussed in Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior
Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 558-559 (Belaire-West), courts
may utilize an opt-out process in order to balance a class-action
plaintiff’s right to discover witnesses and putative class members’
contact information with the privacy rights of the putative class
members. In this process, the employer submits employee
contact information to a third-party administrator, who then
contacts the employees and provides them with the option to opt
out of having their contact information disclosed to the plaintiff’s
attorney.

                                 3
than 10 pages of general objections and nine pages of objections
to each request.
       After discussing available dates with the parties, the court
set an informal discovery conference for February 22, 2022.
Because the deadline for Perez to file motions to compel discovery
fell on the same day, she requested an extension from CHR’s
counsel. According to Perez, CHR refused to grant an extension,
causing Perez to seek relief from the court. On February 3, 2022,
the court issued a minute order tolling the filing deadline for
Perez’s motions to compel discovery to March 30, 2022.
       On February 16, 2022, Perez filed an informal discovery
conference statement in advance of the scheduled February 22
conference. She outlined pending discovery issues, including
CHR’s failure to respond to a draft Belaire-West notice and
request for approximate class size in contravention of prior court
orders, and CHR’s failure to provide substantive responses to
discovery. At the conference on February 22, 2022, the court
ordered CHR to provide substantive verified discovery responses
and a class list by March 22. These orders were memorialized in
the court’s minute order from the hearing and a notice of ruling
served on CHR’s counsel.
       In a letter on March 11, 2022, CHR’s counsel stated that
CHR “will not be supplementing any discovery responses” based
on the objection that Perez “waived [her] right to the discovery by
not complying with the informal discovery conference
prerequisites nor filing [a motion to compel] within the 45-day
deadline.” Perez reported to the court on March 23, 2022 that
CHR had not complied with any of the court’s February 22, 2022
orders. CHR did not dispute this report, but stated it intended to

                                 4
move to strike the SAC based on Perez’s purported waiver of “her
right to compel further response to her discovery.”
       At a status conference on March 30, 2022, the court issued
an order to show cause (OSC) why sanctions of $1,000 should not
be imposed against counsel for CHR for failure to comply with the
court’s February 22, 2022 order. The court set a hearing on the
OSC for April 26, 2022, with a written response by CHR’s counsel
due April 21, 2022. The court also extended Perez’s motion to
compel deadline to May 2, 2022.
       CHR filed a motion to strike the SAC on April 4, 2022.
CHR also filed a response to the OSC on April 18, stating that
CHR’s counsel had complied “with all aspects of what his
memorialization of the February 22, 2022 hearing [sic].”
Specifically, CHR’s counsel argued that his compliance consisted
of the submission of two items requested by the court—CHR’s
proposed motion to strike and case law supporting his objection
to discovery on the basis that Perez purportedly conspired with
her counsel to be hired by CHR for the purpose of instigating
litigation. CHR’s counsel did not dispute that CHR had failed to
serve substantive discovery responses or a class list, as ordered;
instead, he stated that there were “a few disconnects” between
what he understood and what the court ordered on February 22,
2022, but that they “are more form over substance.”
       At the April 26, 2022 hearing, the court denied CHR’s
motion to strike. The court found that Perez had not waived her
right to compel further discovery responses and, even if she had,
such waiver would not be a basis on which to strike the entire
complaint. The court also discharged the OSC and set a hearing
date for Perez’s motions to compel discovery, noting that it would

                                5
address the issue of sanctions in the context of the discovery
motions.
       Perez filed her motions to compel further responses to the
special interrogatories and document requests on May 2, 2022.
She sought sanctions of $22,360, arguing that CHR had refused
to discuss the discovery and had failed to provide any substantive
responses despite the court’s prior orders. In opposition, CHR
argued that Perez failed to attempt to informally resolve the
discovery issues as required under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2016.0403 and failed to timely file a motion to compel. It
also argued that it had made “significant and repeated efforts to
meet and confer” to avoid motion practice, specifically by drafting
the motion to strike and seeking informal discovery regarding
CHR’s claim of barratry, i.e., that Perez was a planted employee.
CHR also argued that it properly refused to provide discovery due
to privacy concerns, specifically related to its claim that Perez
was not a genuine employee.
       At the hearing on the motions to compel on May 26, 2022,
counsel for CHR argued only that the sanctions amount should be
reduced. The court took the matter under submission. The
following day, the court issued a written order granting the
motions to compel and awarding sanctions of $10,000 against
CHR and its counsel. The court detailed CHR’s failures to
comply with prior orders, including the court’s orders in October

3     Section 2016.040 requires that a “meet and confer
declaration in support of a motion [to compel] shall state facts
showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal
resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” All further
statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise specified.

                                 6
and December 2021 to proceed with the Belaire-West process.
Further, at the informal discovery conference on February 22,
2022, the court gave CHR “additional time to amend its
responses rather than face a motion to compel.” CHR again
failed to comply, and had not provided any substantive discovery
responses.
       The court also found that Perez had “reasonably and in
good faith attempted to resolve the deficiencies in CA Herbal’s
responses.” The court again rejected CHR’s contention that Perez
waived the right to move to compel. The court also rejected
CHR’s privacy argument, noting that those concerns were
adequately protected under the Belaire-West process. The court
found that CHR had not acted with substantial justification in
opposing the motions to compel, concluding that CHR’s “repeated
failure to adhere to direct court orders requiring it to provide
contact information … and substantive responses to discovery
completely undermines any pretext of substantial justification.”
The court also noted that the issues raised were “not close calls,”
but involved routinely discoverable information. Further, the
court found that CHR’s privacy objection was “particularly
meritless” in the context of Perez’s document requests, which did
not seek employee contact information but rather, for example,
the employee handbook and Perez’s own personnel file.
       CHR timely appealed from the court’s May 27, 2022 ruling.
                           DISCUSSION
       CHR contends the trial court erred in granting Perez’s
motions to compel discovery and awarding sanctions against
CHR and its counsel. We agree with Perez that only the
sanctions order is appealable pursuant to section 904.1,
subdivision (a)(12). We therefore dismiss the portion of the

                                7
appeal arising from the court’s order granting the motions to
compel as interlocutory. As to the sanctions, we find no abuse of
discretion by the trial court. We therefore affirm the trial court’s
sanctions order.
I.     Appealability
       CHR appeals from the trial court’s order of May 27, 2022,
which includes the order granting Perez’s motions to compel
further responses to discovery and the award of $10,000 in
sanctions against CHR and its counsel. Perez contends that only
the sanctions portion of the order is appealable. We agree.
       “The right to appeal is wholly statutory.” (Dana Point Safe
Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5.)
“Unless an order is expressly made appealable by a statute, this
court has no jurisdiction to consider it.” (Levinson Arshonsky &
Kurtz LLP v. Kim (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 896, 903; see also Griset
v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.)
       Under section 904.1(a)(12), an appeal may be taken from
“an order directing payment of monetary sanctions by a party or
an attorney for a party if the amount exceeds five thousand
dollars ($5,000).” There is no comparable statutory right to
appeal from a prejudgment discovery order. (See Montano v. Wet
Seal Retail, Inc. (2015) 7 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1259; Doe v. United
States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1432.)
Instead, discovery orders are appealable as part of an appeal
from a final judgment. (See Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
1036, 1060.) In addition, a party may petition for extraordinary
writ relief related to discovery matters, including to prevent
discovery of information protected by a right of privacy. (See,
e.g., Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011)

                                 8
194 Cal.App.4th 288, 300 [granting in part writ petition
regarding class notice to medical patients].)
      Here, the monetary sanctions imposed by the trial court are
appealable under section 904.1(a)(12). But no other portion of
the court’s May 27, 2022 order is directly appealable. Tellingly,
the cases cited by CHR in support of its contention that it may
appeal the entire order involve writ review rather than direct
appeal. (See Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior
Court, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 300; City of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 282 [“‘Writ review is
appropriate in discovery matters where, as here, it is necessary to
address ‘questions of first impression that are of general
importance to the trial courts and to the [legal] profession, and
where general guidelines can be laid down for future cases.’’”].)
      CHR admits it did not seek writ review. Instead, it argues
that the entire discovery order is appealable because the court
issued a single order granting the motions to compel and
awarding sanctions. It cites no authority to support this
contention. CHR’s reliance on Rail-Transport Employees Assn. v.
Union Pacific Motor Freight (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 469 (Rail-
Transport) is inapposite, as that case involved an appeal
challenging only discovery sanctions. (Id. at p. 475 [“the
discovery sanction imposed against RTEA exceeds $5,000 and is
therefore appealable”].) The fact that section 904.1(a)(12)
permits appeals from “orders” does not encompass orders other
than those expressly included in the statute. (§ 904.1(a)(12); Rail-
Transport, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p.474; see also Deck v.
Developers Investment Co., Inc. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 808, 829
(Deck) [in appeal from order granting both issue and monetary
sanctions, dismissing portion of appeal regarding issue sanctions

                                 9
and considering portion regarding monetary sanctions, as that
order was “by statute severable and immediately appealable”].)
        As such, we dismiss the portion of the appeal taken from
the trial court’s order granting Perez’s motions to compel
discovery.
II.     Order Granting Sanctions
        We turn to the appealable portion of the court’s order, the
award of discovery sanctions against CHR and its counsel. As
relevant here, section 2023.010 authorizes a trial court to impose
monetary sanctions for conduct amounting to a misuse of the
discovery process, including “[m]aking, without substantial
justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” (id., subd.
(e)); “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery” (id., subd. (f));
“[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” (id., subd. (g));
and “opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial
justification, a motion to compel ... discovery” (id., subd. (h)).
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one
engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
conduct.” (§ 2023.030, subd. (a).)
        A court shall impose a monetary sanction against “any
party, person, or attorney” who unsuccessfully opposes a motion
to compel a further response to interrogatories or to requests for
production of documents “unless [the court] finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that
other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(§§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
        Thus, monetary sanctions are mandatory absent a finding
of substantial justification. (See Deck, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at

                                 10
pp. 829-830.) “‘The trial court has broad discretion in deciding
whether to impose sanctions and in setting the amount of
monetary sanctions.’” (Id. at pp. 823-824, quoting Cornerstone
Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56
Cal.App.5th 771, 789.) We review a trial court order imposing
discovery sanctions for abuse of that discretion. ( Deck, supra, 89
Cal.App.5th at p. 823.)
       Apart from arguing that the trial court’s initial order
compelling discovery responses was in error, CHR makes no
independent showing that the trial court abused its direction in
finding that CHR lacked substantial justification in opposing the
motions to compel. Moreover, the record amply demonstrates
that the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding
sanctions here. CHR served voluminous objections to Perez’s
discovery requests without any substantive responses, including
boilerplate privacy objections to requests that did not call for
private information. CHR has provided no justification for its
blanket failure to cooperate in discovery, even assuming its
privacy objections were properly raised. Moreover, CHR
repeatedly refused to obey the trial court’s orders to supplement
its responses and provide information to engage in the standard
Belaire-West process. We also note that, although CHR
repeatedly argues on appeal that the trial court failed to consider
the heightened privacy concerns of its employees due to the
dangers of working for a cannabis retailer, CHR did not raise this
argument until after the trial court had granted the motions to
compel. Instead, in its voluminous objections to discovery,
opposition to the motions to compel, and motion to strike the
SAC, CHR raised only a general privacy objection tied to its
accusation that Perez was a “plant” and not a true employee. As

                                11
such, we find no abuse of discretion in the sanctions award
against CHR and its counsel.
                         DISPOSITION
      The May 27, 2022 order awarding sanctions is affirmed.
The remainder of the appeal is dismissed. Perez is entitled to her
costs on appeal.

  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           COLLINS, J.

We concur:

CURREY, P.J.

ZUKIN, J.

                               12