Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case 22STCV08394 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to: (1) Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents; (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment and General; and (3) Special Interrogatories

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center moves to compel plaintiff Boae Lee to serve a further response to demand for production No. 15. A party demanding production may move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

Demand No. 15 states: “Produce any and all DOCUMENTS which reference or relate to YOUR disability.” Plaintiff responded only by objecting on numerous grounds, including that the demand “is overbroad and unduly burdensome as well as failing to identify with reasonable particularity the category of documents sought.” (Separate Statement, p. 3 [supplemental response].)

This demand does not specify a reasonably particularized category. A demand for production must “[d]esignate the documents” to be produced “either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (CCP § 2031.030(c)(1).) In Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222, the Court of Appeal rejected a demand it summarized as, “Produce everything in your possession which in any way relates to gun mounts.” The court further noted, “There is no indication the ‘categories’ bear any relationship to the manner in which Calcor maintains its records. The burden is sought to be imposed on Calcor to search its extensive files, at many locations, to see what it can find to fit [the demanding party’s] definitions, instructions and categories.” (Ibid.)

Demand No. 15 is so broad that plaintiff cannot reasonably respond. It is equivalent to demanding, “Produce everything in your possession which in any way relates to your disability.” The demand imposes an undue burden on plaintiff to see what she could find to fit it. It would include a potentially endless range of distinct categories of documents, such as medical bills, correspondence with defendant (or anyone else) about plaintiff’s alleged disability, and photographs that happen to show any affected body parts.

The court sustains plaintiff’s objections that the request is overbroad and does not identify a reasonably particularized category.

Defendant Dignity Community Care’s motion to compel further responses to demand for production and inspection of documents is denied.

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general Nos. 2.1, 2.2, and 12.1 and form interrogatories – employment Nos. 202.1 and 207.1.

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories when an answer “is evasive or incomplete” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1), “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate” (§ 2030.300(a)(2)), or an objection “is without merit or too general” (§ 2030.300(a)(3)).

Form interrogatory – general No. 2.1 asks plaintiff for her name, every name she has previously used, and when she used each name. No. 2.2 asks her to state the date and place of her birth. Plaintiff responded only with objections.

This information is discoverable. The scope of discovery includes any matter that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) Plaintiff’s name, any former names, and her place and date of birth are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All the requested information may be necessary for defendant to obtain relevant medical or employment records. The information may also assist defendant in identifying witnesses who knew plaintiff by a former name.

Plaintiff objects that these interrogatories invade her privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of privacy. When bringing a lawsuit, a reasonable person should expect to be asked the questions included in general form interrogatories. Any intrusion is minimal.

No. 12.1 asks plaintiff to identify and provide contact information of any people who witnessed the incident, made any statements at the scene, heard any statements made at the scene, or have knowledge of the incident. Plaintiff responded only by objecting.

Plaintiff contends this interrogatory improperly seeks expert witness information that is “presently protected by the attorney work-product privilege.” It does not. No. 12.1 asks about percipient witnesses. Subpart (d) expressly states, “(except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).”

Plaintiff further objected that the interrogatory is unclear and overbroad because it incorporates the default definition of “INCIDENT”: “INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Form Interrogatories—General, § 4(a)(1).) Though this default definition of “incident” better fits personal injury cases, it is not so vague or broad that plaintiff need not respond. Plaintiff’s complaint describes the circumstances and events giving rise to this action: primarily, providing statements during an investigation and lawsuit over a coworker’s FEHA claim; taking a leave of absence under CFRA; and being terminated.

Plaintiff’s objections to form interrogatories – general Nos. 2.1, 2.2, and 12.1 are overruled.

Form interrogatory – employment No. 202.1 asks plaintiff to identify: (a) discriminatory adverse employment actions, (b) her applicable protected characteristics, (c) supporting facts for each claim, (d) each person with knowledge of the facts, and (e) all documents evidence the facts.

Plaintiff’s response to No. 202.1(d) is incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff responded, “Plaintiff, Defendants and each of them. Defendants employees, supervisors, managing agents, directors, and others. Rebecca Siason; Dr.” The response abruptly ends in the middle of naming someone. Doctor who? Plaintiff also did not name or provide any identifying information about defendants’ employees, supervisors, managing agents, or directors. Referring to “others” is evasive. The point of the interrogatory is that the responding party must name the people and provide their addresses and phone numbers.

Plaintiff’s response to No. 202.1(e) is adequate. It asks plaintiff to identify all documents evidencing the facts underlying claims for discriminatory adverse employment actions. She responded, “In accord CCP 2030.230, a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of this Responding Party’s personnel file held by Defendant are necessary to furnish a complete response to this Interrogatory. …” That constitutes answering that her personnel file contains all documents evidencing the relevant facts. That is an adequate specification to permit defendant to locate and identify the documents.

No. 207.1 asks various questions about “internal written policies or regulations of the EMPLOYER that apply to the making of a complaint of the type that is the subject matter of this lawsuit.” Plaintiff responded “Yes” and stated the interrogatory seeks a compilation, therefore “Plaintiff directs Defendant to their own files.”

Plaintiff’s response is an unwarranted exercise of the option to produce documents. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(2).) It does not make sense that answering “the manner in which the DOCUMENT was communicated to EMPLOYEES” or “the manner, if any, in which EMPLOYEES acknowledged receipt of the DOCUMENT” requires a summary or compilation.

Plaintiff’s response is also deficient because “the required specification of [the] documents is inadequate.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(2).) The responding party’s specification of documents “shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (CCP § 2030.230.) This provision “only if the summary is not available and the party specifies the records from which the information can be ascertained. [Fn.] A broad statement that the information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 784.) Plaintiff generically referred to a mass of documents: “Defendant’s files.” That is not sufficient detail to permit defendant to find the answer.

Plaintiff objected that No. 207.1 only applies to defendants. The court rejects this argument. Though No. 207.1 partially appears to ask questions applicable only to an employer (particularly subpart (d)), subpart (e) only applies to the employee: “state, if you contend that the EMPLOYEE’s failure to use internal complaint procedures was excused, all facts why the EMPLOYEE’s use of the procedures was excused.”

Defendant moves for $2,560 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (CCP § 2030.300(d).)

Plaintiff’s opposition was mostly unsuccessful. Plaintiff successfully opposed the motion only as to one subpart of form interrogatory – employment No. 202.1(e). The court finds plaintiff did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances. The court finds defendant reasonably incurred $2,560 in expenses.

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 1-42.

Special interrogatory No. 1 is unintelligible and overly broad. It asks, “State all facts which reference or relate to YOUR hiring by EMPLOYER.” Plaintiff made objections, including that it “is non-sensical as phrased” and “unduly burdensome and overbroad.” This question is confusing and only permits the reader to guess what defendant is asking. “When were you hired?”, “who conducted your interview,” or “what was your initial rate of pay” are clear questions. It is exceedingly difficult to accurately determine the scope of “all facts which reference or relate to” plaintiff’s hiring.

No. 2 similarly asks plaintiff to “IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any facts which reference or relate to YOUR hiring by EMPLOYER.” It is unintelligible and overly broad for the same reasons as No. 1.

No. 5 suffers from the same problem. It asks plaintiff to “IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any facts which reference or relate to YOUR job titles while working for EMPLOYER.” The phrase “facts which reference or relate to [plaintiff’s] job titles” is ambiguous. Clear questions include, for example, asking plaintiff to identify people with knowledge of plaintiff’s job duties or her performance. This question is unintelligible.

Plaintiff’s objections to special interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are sustained.

Plaintiff made meritless objections to the remaining special interrogatories, Nos. 3, 4, and 6-42. Most ask plaintiff to state all facts which reference or relate to numerous allegations in plaintiff’s complaint and to identify all people with knowledge of those facts. Nos. 8 and 11 ask plaintiff to identify documents. No. 8 asks her to identify all documents which reference or relate to her allegations that she was performing her job duties “in an exemplary manner, as alleged in paragraph 8 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” No. 11 asks her to identify all documents regarding the allegation she suffered harassment and intimidation after participating in another employee’s lawsuit, “as alleged in paragraph 12 of YOUR COMPLAINT.”

These interrogatories are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. “Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (CCP § 2017.010.) “An interrogatory may relate to… the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” (CCP § 2030.010(b).) Each interrogatory seeks to discover supporting facts, witnesses, and documents for various allegations plaintiff makes in the complaint.

Unlike Nos. 1, 2, and 5, these interrogatories are sufficiently clear. They are limited to specified allegations in the complaint and other similar matters. For example, No. 6 asks plaintiff to “[s]tate all facts which reference or relate to YOUR allegation that throughout YOUR employment with EMPLOYER, including at the time of YOUR termination, YOU performed YOUR duties and responsibilities in an exemplary manner, as alleged in paragraph 8 of YOUR COMPLAINT.” No. 15 asks plaintiff to identify people “with knowledge of any facts which reference or relate to YOUR allegation that EMPLOYER engaged in malice, fraud, or oppression, as alleged in paragraph 20 of YOUR COMPLAINT.”

Nos. 30, 31, and 33 ask plaintiff to identify people who harassed her: (30) in relation to participating in legal proceedings against defendant; (31) in relation to her disability; and (33) in relation to her age. These are also reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Though they do not incorporate specific allegations in the complaint, they are straightforward and narrow.

Nos. 38-42 ask similar questions about plaintiffs’ damages and attempts to mitigate. Again, though they do not incorporate specific paragraphs of the complaint, they are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and are sufficiently straightforward and narrow.

Plaintiff objected that many of the interrogatories ask for information that is equally available to defendant. One cannot “refus[e] to answer an interrogatory simply upon the ground that the answer is known to the party seeking the information.” (Singer v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 324.) This response only applies to the extent the responding party does not know the answer. “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (CCP § 2030.220(c).) Even if the responding party cannot fully answer, she must answer as much as possible based on her personal knowledge.

Plaintiff did not respond that she lacks personal knowledge to, for example, state each of her job titles. (Special Interrogatory No. 3.) Though defendant also has knowledge of these facts, plaintiff must respond as fully as possible based on what she knows.

Plaintiff also objected that many interrogatories are disjunctive or conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f). The Court of Appeal has noted that a leading practice guide “comment[s] that ‘[t]he rule should probably apply only where more than a single subject is covered by the question.’ ” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.) Though many of the interrogatories use the words “and” and “or,” they are not conjunctive or disjunctive questions. Each question asks for information about a single specified subject.

Finally, plaintiff objected to numerous interrogatories on the grounds that they contain “undefined capitalized words in that Propounding Parties are not permitted to list definitions in a preface or instructions, which is prohibited by CCP 2030.060(d).” This objection amounts to contending that, though the capitalized words are defined, they are defined in the wrong place. The court rejects this argument. Section 2030.060(d) prohibits any “preface or instruction”—not definitions of “[a]ny term specially defined in a set of interrogatories,” which subdivision (e) specifically permits.

Plaintiff’s objections to special interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, and 6-42 are overruled.

Defendant moves for $3,810 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (CCP § 2030.300(d).)

Plaintiff’s opposition was almost entirely unsuccessful. The court finds plaintiff did not act with substantial justification and sanctions are just under the circumstances. The court finds defendant reasonably incurred $3,810 in expenses.

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center’s motion to compel further responses to request for production, set one, is denied.

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general and employment, set one, is granted as to Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 202.1(d), and 207.1. The motion is denied as to No. 202.1(e). Plaintiff Boae Lee is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to form interrogatories – general, Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, and form interrogatories – employment, Nos. 202.1(d), and 207.1, within 30 days.

Plaintiff Boae Lee and plaintiff’s counsel of record, Michael Yellin, are ordered to pay defendant $2,560 in sanctions within 30 days. Plaintiff and Yellin are jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.

Defendant Dignity Community Care dba California Hospital Medical Center’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is granted as to Nos. 3, 4, and 6-42. The motion is denied as to Nos. 1, 2, and 5. Plaintiff Boae Lee is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, and 6-42 within 30 days.

Plaintiff Boae Lee and plaintiff’s counsel of record, Michael Yellin, are ordered to pay defendant $3,810 in sanctions within 30 days. Plaintiff and Yellin are jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.