Tentative Ruling: Jayne Gill v. US Data Management, LLC, et al.

Case Number

24CV02741

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/27/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1. Motion of Defendant US Data Management LLC to Dismiss or Stay Based on Forum Non Conveniens; 2. Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Deposition of Joe Morgan; 3. Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Deposition of Kevin Brown

Tentative Ruling

Jayne Gill v. US Data Management, LLC, et al. 

Case No. 24CV02741

           

Hearing Date: April 27, 2026                                                  

HEARING: 

1.  Motion of Defendant US Data Management LLC to Dismiss or Stay Based on Forum Non Conveniens
2.  Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Deposition of Joe Morgan
3.  Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Deposition of Kevin Brown   

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Jayne Gill: Mazen Khatib  

                                    For Defendant US Data Management, LLC, and Kevin Brown: John Haubrich, Jr., Alexandra B. Adams, Tatyana Matni, O’Hagan Meyer LLP

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.        The motion of defendant US Data Management, LLC, to dismiss or stay based upon forum non conveniens is denied.
2.        The motions of plaintiff to compel the depositions of Joe Morgan and Kevin Brown are each granted. On or before April 29, 2026, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer, in person, by video conference, or by telephone, to agree on dates for these depositions to occur between May 11, 2026, and June 1, 2026, inclusive. If the parties have not agreed on dates in writing, for each deposition for which there is not an agreement in writing, defendant US Data Management, LLC, shall provide in writing, on or before May 4, 2026, three court-day dates for the deposition to occur (i.e., three dates for Morgan and three dates for Brown, which dates may or may not overlap one another), with all dates falling within the period between May 11, 2026, and June 1, 2026, inclusive. On or before May 6, 2026, plaintiff shall serve deposition notices for each of these depositions, with the date noticed for each deposition to occur on dates provided by US Data or as otherwise agreed. The place and manner of the depositions are to be substantially the same as in the previous deposition notices. If dates for depositions are not timely provided in writing by US Data, plaintiff may serve deposition notices, on or before May 6, 2026, for these depositions to occur on any court days in this same time period. If, notwithstanding this procedure, there remain disagreements as to dates, a party may apply ex parte for an order fixing dates.
3.        The court awards monetary sanctions as reasonable attorney fees in favor of plaintiff and against defendant US Data Management, LLC, in the amount of $3,900 with respect to the motion to compel the deposition of deponent Morgan, and in the amount of $1,950 with respect to the motion to compel the deposition of deponent Brown. Sanctions are to be paid to counsel for plaintiff on or before May 27, 2026.
4.        On or before May 11, 2026, counsel for each of the parties shall comply with Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 1308.

Background:

On May 17, 2024, plaintiff Jayne Gill filed her original complaint in this action against defendants US Data Management, LLC (US Data), USDM Holdings, LLC, USDM Life Sciences, and Kevin Brown asserting 16 causes of action: (1) gender harassment in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes section 354-A:7; (2) gender harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (3) gender harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940); (4) gender discrimination in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes section 354-A:7; (5) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (6) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA; (7) retaliation in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Section 354-A:19; (8) retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (9) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act; (11) retaliation in violation of the New Hampshire Whistleblowers’ Protection Act; (12) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (14) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (15) breach of contract; and (16) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On June 21, 2024, US Data filed a notice of removal to federal court.

On September 3, 2025, the order of remand from the federal court was filed in this court. The court notes that no party has complied with Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 1308, which provides:

“After an action is removed to federal court, remand from the federal court to the state court is effected when the federal court clerk sends a certified copy of the order on remand to the clerk of the superior court. Documents filed in federal court after removal are not provided to the superior court. To complete the superior court’s file after remand, within 30 days of the filing of the order of remand, each party shall file a declaration describing the material pleadings that party filed in the federal action and the pertinent orders or rulings entered in the federal action. Certified or conformed copies of all such pleadings and papers shall be attached to the declaration.”

Because the parties have failed to comply with rule 1308, the court only has the federal court docket provided by the federal court with its remand order as to the occurrences and filings in the federal court. That docket indicates that US Data filed a motion to compel arbitration on June 28, 2024, which was opposed by Gill on July 5. The motion was taken under submission on July 29. On August 13, the District Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. A response was filed by US Data on August 20. On December 2, the District Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. On December 16, US Data filed an answer to the complaint. On February 10, 2025, a joint report under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26 (28 U.S.C.) was filed on behalf of plaintiff and all named defendants. On August 8, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On August 27, 2025, the motion was granted.

Following remand from the federal court, a case management conference (CMC) was held in this matter on December 1, 2025. Only plaintiff filed a CMC statement in advance of that conference; plaintiff’s CMC statement checks the box that all parties named in the complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed. At the CMC, the court set a trial confirmation conference date for November 16, 2026. The “trial confirmation conference” date is the trial date for all purposes in the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court, including for calculating discovery deadlines and cutoffs.

On November 12, 2025, plaintiff served notices of deposition of Kevin Brown and Joe Morgan. (Khatib decl. re depos, ¶ 6 & exhibit 4.) Kevin Brown is alleged to be the CEO of US Data. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) Joe Morgan is the HR Manager for US Data. (Schultz decl., ¶ 16.)

On November 26, 2025, US Data served objections to the deposition notices of Brown and Morgan. (Khatib decl. re depos, ¶ 7 & exhibit 5.)

On December 24, 2025, US Data filed this motion to stay or to dismiss this action based on forum non conveniens. The motion is opposed by plaintiff.

On December 31, 2025, plaintiff filed these motions to compel the depositions of Brown and Morgan. The motions are opposed by US Data and Brown.

Analysis:

(1)       Forum Non Conveniens

“When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).)

“Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (Stangvik).)

“In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial. If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) “On a motion for forum non conveniens defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof. The granting or denial of such a motion is within the trial court’s discretion, and substantial deference is accorded its determination in this regard.” (Ibid.)

US Data’s motion is based on its assertions that the alleged circumstances of plaintiff’s claims occurred in Bedford, New Hampshire, that the majority of witnesses are located away from Santa Barbara and California, that work plaintiff performed and would have performed but for plaintiff’s termination would have occurred in Bedford, New Hampshire, that plaintiff is a resident of New Hampshire, and that the complaint alleges violations of New Hampshire law. (Notice, at p. 2.)

            (A)       Suitable Alternative Forum

US Data argues that this action should be commenced in Hillsborough County Superior Court, New Hampshire. It does not appear in the court’s records that there is now any action pending in that court.

The first determination is whether the alternative forum is a “suitable place for trial.” US Data argues:

“Here, the Hillsborough County Superior Court in New Hampshire is a suitable forum because Plaintiff is not a resident of California. The balance here is actually more in Plaintiff’s favor to litigate this matter in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, who resides and worked for Defendant in New Hampshire, and it has subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under New Hampshire law, which were specifically pled by Plaintiff. Additionally, the Hillsborough County Superior Court can adjudicate claims arising under federal law, including Plaintiff’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliation causes of action, which form part of the basis of her Complaint.” (Motion, at p. 6.)

Neither party asserts that a contractual forum selection clause applies here, so contractual provisions do not bear on whether New Hampshire is a “suitable place for trial.”

“ ‘ “A forum is suitable if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits. [Citation.] ‘[A] forum is suitable where an action “can be brought,” although not necessarily won.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]”

(Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 472.)

There is no apparent question that the New Hampshire court, like this state court, has subject matter jurisdiction to address each of plaintiff’s claims regardless of whether the claim is based on the forum-state law, another state’s law, or federal law. As to personal jurisdiction, US Data argues only that a New Hampshire court would have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. US Data does not concede or agree to personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire. US Data states that plaintiff worked remotely for US Data from New Hampshire. (Schultz decl., ¶ 6.) From this evidence, it seems likely that the New Hampshire court would have personal jurisdiction over US Data. At the same time, there is no information or argument as to the availability of personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire over other defendants.

With respect to the statute of limitations, the moving papers contain no discussion of the applicable statutes of limitations. In reply to plaintiff’s raising this issue in opposition, US Data simply asserts that the statute of limitations has not expired and so therefore a failure to waive the statute is not a procedural requirement. (Reply, at p. 2.)

Plaintiff alleges having been wrongfully terminated on March 13, 2024. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) The complaint in this action was filed May 17, 2024. Any action filed in New Hampshire would necessarily be filed after this ruling, a month more than two years after the last employment action alleged in the complaint. It is unclear whether any general statute of limitation would bar any of these actions based on a two-year limitations period. The court notes that some of plaintiff’s claims have separate limitations periods keyed to right-to-sue letters. (See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) [title VII]; Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(1)(D) [FEHA].) These limitations periods are short and appear likely to have expired absent an explanation why such limitations periods would not have expired. Thus, at least some of plaintiff’s claims would appear to be barred by a statute of limitations.

The court finds that US Data has not met its burden of proof to show that New Hampshire is a “suitable place for trial” under the standards for forum non conveniens.

            (B)       Private and Public Interests

Because the court’s finding that New Hampshire is not a suitable place for trial is based upon US Data’s failure to meet its burden, the court nonetheless analyzes the private and public interests assuming that New Hampshire is a suitable place for trial under the standards for forum non conveniens.

As noted above, the “private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

US Data argues that trial in California is significantly less convenient for key witnesses. In support of US Data’s motion, US Data provides the following location information:

US Data is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in Santa Barbara. (Schultz decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendant Brown resides in Santa Barbara. (Schultz decl., ¶ 4.) Gill worked remotely from New Hampshire, where she is a resident. (Schultz decl., ¶¶ 6, 10.) Gill’s employment records were collected virtually, are stored electronically, and are accessible remotely, rather than physically in California. (Schultz decl., ¶ 9.) Third party witnesses previously deposed by plaintiff are located outside of California in Colorado, the Netherlands, and Germany. (Schultz decl., ¶¶ 11-14.)

US Data argues that these witnesses are closer to New Hampshire than to California, so this factor weighs in favor of trial in New Hampshire. Plaintiff points out that other witnesses, including Brown, are located in Santa Barbara. The above evidence of location does not favor trial in New Hampshire. Apart from the plaintiff herself, none of the identified witnesses are located in New Hampshire or relatively proximate to New Hampshire. The evidence presented is weak that travel to New Hampshire from such distances would be meaningfully less expensive than travel to California; some witnesses would not need to travel at all if trial is in California.

Because no witnesses other than plaintiff are resident in New Hampshire and there is no evidence presented about the availability of compulsory process, there is no showing that any witness other than plaintiff could be compelled to testify at trial in New Hampshire. On the other hand, those witnesses residing in Santa Barbara could be compelled to testify in a California trial. The compulsory process as to other witness would presumably be available, or not, to the same extent in California or New Hampshire.

The evidence presented is that physical evidence, as opposed to witnesses, is equally available in California and in New Hampshire because it is available virtually.

The evidence presented that US Data is a California limited liability company strongly favors trial in California as to the ease of enforceability of a judgment. While a New Hampshire judgment would be enforceable in California, additional steps and expenses are required to domesticate such a judgment to enforce it against California residents in California.

“The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

Neither party provides any evidence regarding the relative burdens on this court as opposed to the New Hampshire court. As a general matter, the court has set a trial date in this case for November 16, 2026; no action is now pending in New Hampshire.

US Data argues that the Santa Barbara community has no interest in this action because plaintiff is not a resident of this community or California and plaintiff is forum-shopping. Plaintiff argues that US Data is based in Santa Barbara and therefore the community has an interest in the disposition of this matter. This factor on balance favors a California forum.

While cases are split as to the deference to be given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, “from the teachings of [Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 15 Cal.3d 853] and Stangvik, as interpreted by the most well-reasoned decisions of our court of appeal colleagues, that a resident of one of our sister states who files suit in California is entitled to due deference under the circumstances presented, not a strong presumption, in favor of its choice of forum. That deference is to be weighed and balanced by the trial court along with all the other pertinent factors, including the defendant’s residence or principal place of business, and has no direct bearing on the moving defendant’s burden of proof.” (National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 929–930.) This court considers plaintiff’s choice of venue as a factor to be considered along with all other pertinent factors.

The competing interests of California and New Hampshire, apart from that discussed above, is chiefly in the nature of the claims asserted. Plaintiff asserts claim under each of California, New Hampshire, and federal law. California has an interest in ensuring that employers based in California comply with California law to the extent it is applicable. This interest is at least as great as the complementary interest of New Hampshire.

In its moving papers, US Data also argues that transfer of this action to New Hampshire is required by the FEHA venue statute. (Motion, at p. 8-11.)

“The superior courts of the State of California shall have jurisdiction of actions brought pursuant to this section, and the aggrieved person may file in these courts. An action may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but if the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant’s residence or principal office.” (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(3).)

Section 12965, subdivision (c)(3) addresses venue in a “county in the state.” There is no dispute that among the counties in the State of California, Santa Barbara County is the appropriate venue under subdivision (c)(3). Subdivision (c)(3) does not require venue outside of California and expressly provides for venue in California. Section 12965 does not require this court dismiss or stay this action.

The court has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. Balancing the public and private factors, and assuming that New Hampshire is a “suitable place for trial,” the court concludes that US Data has not met its burden to show that dismissal or stay of this matter on the grounds of forum non conveniens is appropriate.

The motion to dismiss or to stay on the grounds of inconvenient forum will be denied.

(2)       Motions to Compel Depositions

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

“(1)      The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

“(2)      The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Brown and Morgan. The deposition notices do not request the production of documents. The written objections to the deposition notice of deponent Brown (and identical to the objection as to Morgan) are:

“Defendant objects to this deposition on the grounds that Plaintiff unilaterally selected the date for the deposition and, as such, this date has not been coordinated by the parties and Defendant’s counsel is unavailable on the unilaterally selected date. Based on the foregoing, defense counsel and Deponent will not appear for the deposition on December 8, 2025. Defense counsel will meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding this deposition in order to obtain a mutually convenient date which will work for both Parties’ schedules.”  (Khatib decl. re Brown depo., ¶ 7 & exhibit 5.)

On December 3, 2025, counsel for plaintiff emailed counsel for defendant asking about alternative dates for these depositions. (Khatib decl. re depos., ¶ 8 & exhibit 6.) Counsel for defendant did not respond. (Khatib decl. re depos., ¶ 8.)

US Data filed its motion to stay or to dismiss this action based on forum non conveniens on December 24, 2025. Plaintiff filed these motions to compel on December 31.

Inconvenience of the date on which a deposition is to commence, even if unilaterally selected, is not a valid objection under the Civil Discovery Act. Objections as to inconvenience are raise by motion for protective order. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.270, subd. (a) [10 days’ notice required], (d) [by motion or ex parte application, court may shorten or extend time or stay until determination of protective order], 2025.420, subd. (b)(2) [deposition to be taken at a different time].) The record here reflects that plaintiff attempted to coordinate dates, but did not receive any response for such dates.

Although the written objection was made before the motion to dismiss or stay on forum non conveniens grounds was filed, the opposition to this motion focuses upon that pending motion.

“A trial court is not required to allow any discovery prior to ruling on the motion [to dismiss or to stay].” (Kiely v. HYPH (USA), Inc. (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 95, 105 (Kiely).)

While the court is not required to allow discovery, the filing of a motion under section 430.30 to dismiss or to stay the action does not stay discovery. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g) [where discovery stayed by filing motion, as with the anti-SLAPP statute, the statute expressly so states].) Again, the proper procedure to preclude discovery pending the motion, absent agreement of the parties, was to move for a protective order. US Data did not make a motion for a protective order or otherwise seek judicial relief pending disposition of this motion.

Moreover, the justification for not requiring discovery prior to ruling on a forum non conveniens motion is that permitting discovery and discovery litigation in California may defeat the purpose of the motion to stay or dismiss. (Kiely, supra, 113 Cal.App.5th at p. 105.) That justification does not apply here. The parties had already been engaged in substantial discovery while the matter was in federal court. There is no showing that discovery rights in the alternative forum of New Hampshire would preclude or limit the depositions sought here.

The court will grant the motions to compel.

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

The court does not find that US Data acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition a monetary sanction unjust.

Plaintiff’s counsel has presented evidence supporting reasonable attorney fees for the motion to compel as to Morgan in the amount of $3,900, consisting of 6 hours of attorney time at $650 per hour, and as to Brown in the amount of $1,950, consisting of 3 hours of attorney time at $650 per hour. (Khatib decl. re Morgan depo., ¶¶ 9-10; Khatib decl. re Brown depo., ¶¶ 9-10.) The court finds these amounts reasonable under all of the circumstances here and will make an award accordingly.