Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV28278, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV28278, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28278 Hearing Date: November 27, 2023 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion To Compel Defendant Milestone Trucking Inc.’s Further Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Special Interrogatories And For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Milestone Trucking Inc. And Its Counsel Law Offices Of Sheldon Rosenfield For $4,838.09.

Tentative: Motion is granted, and sanctions in a reduced amount.

On 8/30/22, Plaintiff JOSE GUEVARA (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against MILESTONE TRUCKING INC., IVAN MURAT and EVELYN PEREZ (“defendants”), alleging that defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and committed wage statement violations. The Causes of Action are: 1) Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; 2) Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; 3) Failure To Provide Meal Periods; 4) Failure To Provide Rest Periods; 5) Waiting Time Penalties; 6) Wage Statement Violations; 7) Violation Of Labor Code § 2802; 8) Failure To Timely Pay Wages; and 9) Violation Of Business And Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

On 5/9/23, the Court took off calendar Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Milestone Trucking Inc.’s responses to the special interrogatories because Defendant served late responses on 2/17/23, after Plaintiff had filed the motion to compel. On 5/18/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses, without objections, to special interrogatories, and for the Court to impose $4,838.09 sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition filed one day late, based on counsel’s declaration about miscalculating the due date in relation to a holiday.

CCP Section 2030.300(c) provides that the 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further responses runs for the service of the responses or a later date agreed upon by the parties in writing. On 3/30/23, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel confirming the parties’ telephonic agreement to extend the motion to compel deadline to 5/19/23. (Gill Decl., Ex. C.) On 4/24/23, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter, which also referenced the agreed-upon 5/19/23 deadline. (Id., Ex. D.) Defendant acknowledged receipt of the letter and did not dispute the 5/19/23 deadline that Plaintiff had twice confirmed. (Id., Ex. E.) In fact, Defendant never disputed the 5/19/23 deadline until 5/9/23, after Plaintiff again followed up on the meet and confer letter. (Id., Exs. F, G.) Defendant contends the motion is untimely but the communications between the parties establishes that Plaintiff confirmed in writing the parties’ agreement to extend the deadline to 5/19/23, making the motion timely. The Court does not find credible Defendant’s claim that it never agreed to that extension because Defendant did not raise such an objection for more than a month after Plaintiff confirmed the 5/19/23 deadline in writing, multiple times.

Moving to the merits of the motion to compel further responses, the Court grants the motion for the reasons set forth in the motion, at pages 8 through 15, based on authorities such as the following: An interrogatory response must be as complete and straightforward as reasonably available information permits. CCP §2030.220. “If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190. If interrogatory responses lack specificity, then parties may move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a), providing for motions to compel, where parties deem that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or inadequate as to specification of documents. Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190. The rule against disjunctive interrogatories only applies where more than one subject is addressed. Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291. Analogously, form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council entail fundamentally routine discovery of witness contact information. See Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1250. “A party is permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper basis for refusing to provide discovery under another method.” Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 733, 739. Parties requesting discovery information are not first required to prove that it would be relevant and admissible. Alch v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1429-31. Ambiguity objections as to discovery are overruled unless requests are unintelligible. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444. Cf. Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (ambiguity objection deemed a nuisance objection as to request for any medical bills or expense documentation). Defendant’s responses to the special interrogatories at issue in the motion are deficient for all the reasons detailed by Plaintiff.

Defendant shall, therefore, serve further responses, in full compliance with the California Discovery Act, CCP §2030.210 et seq., as to the special interrogatories set forth in Plaintiff’s separate statement, no later than 1/2/24.

On or before that same date, Defendant shall pay discovery sanctions in the total sum of $3,638.00 to Plaintiff, the Court finding the absence of substantial justification. CCP § 2030.300(d).