Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV24193, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV24193 Hearing Date: March 26, 2025 Dept: 52
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan’s Motions to Compel Depositions
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan moves to compel the depositions of numerous witnesses affiliated with defendants. One may move to compel the deposition of a party who fails to appear and testify at deposition “without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
Deposition of Laura Eckert
Plaintiff moves to compel defendant QTC Management, Inc. (QTC) to produce witness Laura Eckert for her deposition. On October 17, 2024, plaintiff served notice of Eckert’s deposition to take place on January 13, 2025. (Zilifyan Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5, Ex. 1.) On December 13, 2024, QTC proposed other dates for the deposition. (Id., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff replied that those dates did not work and proposed two other dates. (Ibid.) QTC’s counsel did not respond. (Zilifyan Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) QTC did not serve any objections to the notice of deposition and did not produce Eckert for her deposition on January 13, 2025. (Id., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling Eckert’s deposition.
Plaintiff also moves for $4,200 in sanctions against QTC and its counsel Ogletree Deakins. If the court grants a motion to compel deposition, it must impose monetary sanctions 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).) QTC did not act with substantial justification. Sanctions are just under the circumstances.
Plaintiff did not, however, reasonably incur $4,200 in expenses for this motion. That amount includes three hours of attorney fees at $600 per hour for anticipated work reviewing the opposition, preparing the reply, and appearing at the hearing. (Zilifyan Decl., ¶ 8.) QTC did not oppose the motion, and plaintiff did not file a reply. The court will therefore impose sanctions for five hours of attorney fees at $600, totaling $3,000.
NY Life Witnesses
Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Jeanie Erickson, Brian Billeter, Kelly Kirk, Joe Shanley, and Tracey Nelson. Defendants New York Life Insurance, New York Life, and New York Life Group Benefits Solutions (collectively, “NY Life”) oppose the motion on several grounds, including that plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer. A motion to compel deposition “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)
Plaintiff did not make a sufficient effort to meet and confer before filing this motion. The declaration in support of this motion shows plaintiff noticed the depositions on October 17, 2024. (Zilifyan Decl., Ex. 2.) On November 6 and November 11, plaintiff’s counsel sent emails attempting to confirm that NY Life did not object to the dates of the depositions. (Ibid.) NY Life did not respond. (Ibid.)
The declaration of plaintiff’s counsel then states, “On December 10, 2024—nearly two months after Plaintiff’s initial outreach— Defendant’s counsel began issuing objections, starting with Jeanie Erickson’s deposition, which was scheduled for December 13, 2024, just three days later. Notably, these objections were raised without any prior attempt to communicate, meet and confer, or engage in discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel. This pattern continued with objections to the depositions of Brian Billeter, Kelly Kirk, Joe Shanley, and Tracey Nelson, all raised only days before their scheduled depositions and without any effort by Defendant’s counsel to confer in advance.” (Zilifyan Decl., ¶ 4.)
Though raising their objections earlier would have been courteous, NY Life was not required to meet and confer before then. A party may object to a deposition “at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) After NY Life objected, plaintiff was required to meet and confer before moving to compel the depositions. (§ 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) She did not.
The declaration in support of NY Life’s opposition shows that, along with their objections, NY Life proposed holding an informal discovery conference (IDC). (Lichtenstein Decl., Ex. I.) Plaintiff agreed to have an IDC (which was ultimately not held), but her IDC statement said nothing about these depositions except, “Given the involvement of Jeanie Erickson, Brian Billeter, Kelly Kirk, Joe Shanley, and Tracy Nelson in Plaintiff’s disability and accommodation claims, Plaintiff has requested their depositions. Defendants have raised strong objections to these requests. Plaintiff now seeks court intervention to resolve this dispute. Please see Exhibit 4”, which is an email thread involving these witnesses in October 2023. (Lichtenstein Decl., Ex. H, p. 4.)
Plaintiff has shown no legitimate effort to engage with NY Life’s reasons for opposing these depositions. She has done nothing more than point to a single thread of emails featuring these five people—four of whom merely received the emails and did not send any emails themselves. (Zilifyan Decl., Ex. 4.)
The court will exercise its discretion to deny this motion due to plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer as required.
Disposition
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan’s motion to compel the deposition of Laura Eckert is granted. Defendant QTC Management, Inc. is ordered to produce witness Laura Eckert for her deposition and produce all documents requested in the notice of deposition within 30 days. Defendant QTC Management, Inc. is ordered to pay plaintiff $3,000 in sanctions within 30 days.
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan’s motion to compel depositions of Jeanie Erickson, Brian Billeter, Kelly Kirk, Joe Shanley, and Tracey Nelson is denied.
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan’s Motion to Compel Defendant QTC
Management, Inc. to Provide Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan moves to
compel defendant QTC Management, Inc. (QTC) to serve supplemental responses to
special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 4, 13-22, and 24-59. A
party propounding interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an
answer “is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce
documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification
of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is
without merit or too general.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
QTC’s
initial response to these interrogatories included meritless objections. Plaintiff served the special interrogatories
on November 4, 2024, but QTC did not respond until December 19. (Zilifyan Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) QTC failed to serve a timely response and
therefore “waive[d] any right to exercise the option to produce writings under
Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including
one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) All objections were therefore meritless.
The initial
response also had evasive or incomplete answers. For example, in response to Nos. 58 and 59
asking to identify witnesses, QTC named several individuals and unidentified
“representatives from New York Life.” QTC
did not assert that it does not know those representatives’ names or that it
made a reasonable and good faith effort to learn their names. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd.
(c).)
After
plaintiff filed this motion, QTC served supplemental responses. As plaintiff notes, QTC did not verify the supplemental
responses. “Unsworn responses are
tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988)
206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Even if QTC
verified the responses, they would be insufficient because they repeatedly refer
to documents instead of answering the questions. Assuming these answers “would necessitate the
preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or
from the documents” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230), QTC failed to serve a timely
response and therefore waived the option to produce writings instead of
answering (§ 2030.290, subd. (a).)
Sanctions
Plaintiff moves for
$6,000 in sanctions against QTC and its counsel. A court must impose
sanctions against a party “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).) QTC unsuccessfully opposed this motion. It did not act with substantial
justification. Sanctions are just under
the circumstances. Plaintiff reasonably
incurred $6,000 in expenses for this motion.
Disposition
Plaintiff Gayane
Mkrtchyan’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted. Defendant QTC Management, Inc. is ordered
to serve further verified responses without objections and without exercising
the option to produce writings to special interrogatories, set one, Nos. 4, 13-22, and 24-59 within 30
days. Defendant QTC Management,
Inc. is ordered to pay plaintiff $6,000 in sanctions within 30
days.
York Life Group Benefits Solutions, New York Life, and New York Life Insurance
to Produce Documents and Complete Verified Supplemental Responses to Requests
for Production of Documents (Set Three)
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan moves to
compel defendants New York Life
Insurance, New York Life, and New York Life Group Benefits Solutions
(collectively, “NY Life”) to serve supplemental response to requests for
production, set three, Nos. 7-14, 16-20, 23, and 24.
Nos. 7-14 and 24
Plaintiff’s
motion is untimely as to Nos. 7-14 and 24.
“Unless
notice of [a motion to compel further responses] is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to
which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
demanding party waives any right to compel a further response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd.
(c).) “[A] party
who fails to meet the time limits” in moving to compel further responses cannot
“avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the
same question again. Such a construction
of the statute would obviously encourage delay and provide no incentive to
attempt to resolve any dispute with the opposing party.” (Professional
Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 494.) This principle applies when prior requests
“would necessarily have elicited” the same information as the new requests. (Id. at p. 492.)
Requests for production, set three, Nos. 7-14 and 24 demand
“[a]ll documents in the possession of” numerous people “pertaining to Plaintiff.” Plaintiff’s first set of requests for
production demanded documents that would necessarily have included the same
documents.
Set one, No. 3 demanded: “All communications (including
e-mails, letters, texts, etc.) between or among any of Responding Defendant’s
employees regarding plaintiff.” (Lichtenstein Decl., Ex. A.) No. 4 demanded: “All communications
(including e-mails, letters, texts, etc.) between or among any of Responding
Defendant’s employees and plaintiff.” No.
5 demanded, “All documents that refer or relate to whether Responding Defendant
ever engaged in any formal or informal investigation of any complaint made,
concern expressed, or grievance brought by plaintiff… .” No. 6 demanded, “All documents that indicate
who investigated any aspect of any complaint made, concern expressed, or
grievance brought by plaintiff… .” No. 7
demanded, “All documents showing all actions Responding Defendant took to
investigate any of plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan’s complaints, expressed concerns,
or grievances.” No. 9 demanded, “All
documents that are or were ever a part of defendant Responding Defendant’s file
on plaintiff, Gayane Mkrtchyan.” No. 11
demanded, “All documents that indicate/refer/ or relate to Plaintiffs
accommodation requests for any medical condition during her employment with
Responding Defendant.” No. 12 demanded,
“All documents that indicate/refer/ relate to the steps Responding Defendant
took to accommodate Plaintiff’s medical conditions during her employment.”
These broad requests would have
included any documents pertaining to plaintiff possessed by the identified
people—who are all employees of NY Life.
Plaintiff cannot now move to compel further responses to her duplicative
requests for production.
Nos. 16-20 and 23
Plaintiff’s
requests Nos. 16-20 and 23 seek job descriptions of six individuals. NY Life objected and refused to produce any
documents. Most of the objections are
boilerplate and clearly inapplicable.
For example, a demand for “Joe Shanley’s job description” (No. 16) is
not “overly broad and unduly burdensome” or “overbroad as to time and scope.” Plaintiff is asking for one document, or at
most a handful of documents if Shanley held multiple jobs. NY Life did not substantiate any of their
objections. These requests are narrow. Even if those documents may not be relevant
and admissible themselves, plaintiff establishes the requests are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. NY Life’s objections are overruled.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
moves for sanctions against NY Life and its counsel. NY Life’s opposition was partially
successful. It acted with substantial
justification. No sanctions are
warranted.
Disposition
Plaintiff Gayane Mkrtchyan’s motion
to compel further responses to requests for production, set three, is granted
in part as to Nos. 16-20 and 23. Defendants
New York Life Insurance, New York Life,
and New York Life Group Benefits Solutions are ordered to serve verified
supplemental responses without objections to requests for production, set
three, Nos. 16-20 and 23 within 30 days.
Defendants shall produce all responsive documents concurrently with
their verified supplemental responses.