Denise Renee Cargill v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc. et al

selected expert, given that the attorney must “possess more than a second-hand understanding of the information being scrutinized.” (Id. at p. 838.)

Randy’s Trucking also made it clear the court has discretion regarding ordering the exchange of the raw data to be provided directly to the attorneys and in exercising such discretion, the record before the court should set forth the legitimate reasons plaintiff needs the raw data. The court does not find sufficient information in the record to allow it to exercise its discretion. HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel should be prepared to address these issues at the hearing.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.250 of $2,500 for the amount of counsel time responding to the motion. The code requires imposition of monetary sanctions unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction order unjust. Plaintiff has not yet created a record outlining his legitimate need for the raw data and therefore defendant appears to have acted with substantial justification in filing the motion.

The motion is DENIED.

Case No.: CV68318 Case Title: Denise Renee Cargill v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc. et al

Case Type: Hostile workplace action/FEHA

Hearing Type: Demurrer

The below is from the August 28, 2026, tentative ruling posted on the court’s website. This matter was continued to September 11, 2026, because plaintiff’s attorney was not present and the matter was also on for a Case Management Conference.

This is a “hostile” workplace action. Before the Court this day is a demurrer to plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for harassment under FEHA.

Under the FEHA, an employer is prohibited from harassing an employee based on a protected characteristic. See Govt. Code §12940. Unlike discrimination claims, “harassment often does not involve any official exercise of delegated power on behalf of the employer,” but rather “focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee.” Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706.

To prevail on a harassment claim based on a hostile work environment, the plaintiff must show: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on her protected status; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) defendants are liable for the harassment.

The conduct must be severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees. It must be more than annoying, and it cannot be occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial. However, a single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue “if the conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” Govt. Code §12923(b); in accord, Alexander v. Community Hospital of Long Beach (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 238; Ortiz v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 568, 581; Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 940.

On a demurrer, the Court is obliged to accept as true all adequately pled facts, even if those facts might be subject to differing interpretations by the ultimate trier of fact. Plaintiff avers in pertinent part that defendant(s) repeatedly pulled away or moved plaintiff’s chair while she was working when she was authorized to have a chair as an accommodation. Plaintiff avers that she was injured on the job, required surgery, and ultimately some accommodation. Though her knee/back pain were arguably distinct from the injuries subsumed within the workers compensation claim, it was apparently known amongst the supervisors that plaintiff needed a chair from time to time.

Given that she was assigned to the “self-check” and “receipt checker” positions, the question is why was the stool/chair repeatedly moved away from plaintiff. There may be a valid business reason, but defendant will need to offer such reason in opposition to the claim by filing an Answer to the Complaint.

DEMURRER OVERRULED. DEFENDANT TO ANSWER IN 10 DAYS.