Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV40382, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40382    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Anselmo Morales sues KNJ Restaurants, Inc. dba Denny’s (KNJ) and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to a November 2, 2021 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Separation Under [Labor Code § 201], (2) Failure to Provide Minimum Wage Compensation [Labor Code § 1197; § 1194, 1194.2 (a)], (3) Failure to Provide Overtime Compensation [Labor Code § 510, 1194], (4) Failure to Provide Wages for Rest Break Periods [Labor Code § 226.7], (5) Failure to Pay Wages for Meal Break Periods [Labor Code § 226.7], (6) Waiting Time Penalties [Labor Code § 203], (7) Age Discrimination [Government Code § 12940 et seq.], (8) Harassment/Hostile Work Environment [California Government Code § 12940 et seq.], (9) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Harassment [Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.], (10) Retaliation [Cal. Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.], and (11) Wrongful Termination.

The claims arise from allegations that, during Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant KNJ between February and November 4, 2019, Defendants engaged in the above stated Labor Code and FEHA violations of Plaintiff’s rights, ultimately concluding in Plaintiff’s wrongful termination.

On August 23, 2022, KNJ’s counsel served on Plaintiff, among other things, Form Interrogatories – General, Set One.

On October 7, 2022, subject to an extension agreement between the parties, Plaintiff Morales served his initial responses to, among other things, Form Interrogatories – General, Set One.

The parties met and conferred through the rest of 2022 and into 2023 regarding supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, ultimately agreeing to May 26, 2023 as the final date for KNJ to move to compel further responses.

Prior to May 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel moved to be relieved of his representation of Plaintiff Morales, with the motion set to be heard on May 26, 2023. The motion was advanced and ultimately granted by the Court on March 17, 2023. Counsel for the parties agreed to the May 26, 2023 cutoff date to permit Plaintiff to secure new counsel and meet and confer regarding KNJ’s discovery requests.

Because Plaintiff did not supplement his responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, on May 26, 2023, KNJ moved to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 2.12, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 10.1, 10.2, and 12.1. KNJ also requested $1,896 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Morales has failed to oppose the May 26th motion. Moreover, the record fails to reflect that Plaintiff has participated in this litigation in any way since his prior counsel was relieved, including failing to obtain new representation.

On September 6, 2023, KNJ filed a notice of non-opposition noticing Plaintiff’s failure to oppose KNJ’s motion.

Defendant KNJ’s motion is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Further Responses, Form Interrogatories

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403 [interrogatories and demands to produce].)

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit].)

Order Compelling Further Interrogatory Responses: GRANTED, in Part.

Defendant KNJ seeks a court order compelling further responses to its Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 2.12, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 10.1, 10.2, and 12.1.

The Court finds that further responses are not merited as to Interrogatory Nos. 2.12, 6.6, 6.7, and 10.2. To these interrogatories, Plaintiff responds in the negative by answering, “[n]ot to Plaintiff’s recollection.” The Court recognizes that such a response is somewhat vague. However, the Court finds that the response is sufficiently responsive to the interrogatories at issue, i.e.: no recollection of physical, emotional, or mental disability that contributed to Defendant KNJ’s Labor Code violations, FEHA violations, and wrongful termination related to Plaintiff Morales (such violations seemingly amounting to the “incident” per the interrogatory definition of this term, see Mot., Barragan Decl., Ex. A, p. 1, § 4, subd. (a)(1)); no recollection of other medical services necessitated by the injuries attributed to the incident; no recollection of whether a health care provider has advised Plaintiff that he may require future or additional treatment arising from injuries Plaintiff attributes to the incident; and no recollection of any physical, mental, or emotional disabilities suffered by Plaintiff prior to the incident. KNJ can serve supplemental requests for discovery near the close of discovery to ascertain whether any additional information is forthcoming. For the moment, however, there is nothing to indicate that more information is necessary as to these interrogatories. Moreover, it is not clear to the Court from KNJ’s briefing that Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in seeking information responsive to these interrogatories. Neither the motion nor the Barragan declaration and the separate statement provide grounds for the Court to make such a conclusion. KNJ simply argues that Plaintiff must have not made adequate inquiries as to these interrogatories based on the somewhat vague responses provided.

The Court also finds that further responses are not merited as to Interrogatory Nos. 10.1 and 12.1.

A review of the Complaint shows that this action does not involve physical injuries to Plaintiff arising from the alleged Labor Code violations, FEHA violations, or wrongful termination. As a result, Interrogatory No. 10.1—asking about physical injuries—is not relevant to this action. The Court observes that in general, these general Form Interrogatories (DISC-001) are not as tailored to an employment case as would be the judicial council Form Interrogatories – Employment (DISC-002). This particular interrogatory may be a case in point.

Interrogatory No. 12.1 requests information relating to individuals who witnessed events surrounding the alleged Labor Code violations, FEHA violations, and wrongful termination (the “incident”), who made statements at the scene of the incident, who heard statements at the scene of the incident, or who have knowledge regarding the incident. Plaintiff’s response was to list a number of managers. The Court finds that such a response is on point to the posed interrogatory and does not, at this point, need supplementation.

However, the Court finds that further responses are merited as to Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 6.4, and 6.5.

Interrogatory No. 2.6 requests information regarding Plaintiff’s employment history beginning five years prior to his employment with KNJ, which is information that is properly discoverable based on KNJ’s argument that such information is relevant to determining Plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate damages and whether Plaintiff was an employee in good standing.

Interrogatory Nos. 6.4 and 6.5 request information relating to treatment received by Plaintiff from health care providers as a result of the incident (Labor Code violations, FEHA violations, and wrongful termination) (Interrogatory No. 6.4) and information relating to medications taken by Plaintiff as a result of the incident (Interrogatory No. 6.5). The response to Interrogatory No. 6.4 is “[n]ot to Plaintiff’s recollection,” which is insufficient where the response to Interrogatory No. 6.5 clearly provides that Plaintiff consulted some kind of health care provider to receive anxiety medication. The response to Interrogatory No. 6.5 is insufficient because it fails to provide more specific answers to subsections (d) to (e).

Defendant KNJ’s motion is therefore GRANTED, in Part, only as to compelling further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 6.4, and 6.5.

Sanctions: DENIED.

The court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and the Court would ordinarily find that sanctions are merited against him. However, Plaintiff explained at oral argument at a prior hearing that after the withdrawal of his prior attorney, he is having difficulty finding an attorney and does not speak English fluently. Accordingly, the Court accepts that representation and will not order sanctions. However, Plaintiff is admonished that he will need to follow the legal requirements as long as he pursues this case, and monetary sanctions could be ordered in the future. 

Conclusion

Defendant KNJ Restaurants, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses by Plaintiff Anselmo Morales to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One is GRANTED, in Part, only as to Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 6.4, and 6.5.

Plaintiff Anselmo Morales is ORDERED to provide further responses to these interrogatories within 60 days of notice of this ruling.

Defendant KNJ Restaurants, Inc.’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.