Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: BC680213, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC680213    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Andrew Rodriguez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Andrew Rodriguez moves to compel defendant County of Los Angeles to further respond to special interrogatories, set two, Nos. 30-35.

Evidentiary Objections

            Defendant makes 13 objections to plaintiff’s evidence.  Objection Nos. 3, 5, and 7-13 are sustained.  Objection Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 are overruled.

Discussion

Plaintiff shows good cause to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 30-35.  A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories when an answer “is evasive or incomplete” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1) or an objection “is without merit or too general” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3)). 

Special interrogatory Nos. 30-33 ask, “State all bases that YOU removed, or caused to be removed, PLAINTIFF’S personnel file from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department … vault” on four dates.  Nos. 34 and 35 ask, “State the rank, title, and CONTACT INFORMATION” for two individuals “who removed PLAINTIFF’S personnel file” on those dates.

Defendant responded by objecting based on attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, deliberative process privilege, and vagueness.  “[I]f a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection.”  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  Defendant made no effort to justify these objections.  Defendant’s opposition only attempts to justify the objection that the interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

These interrogatories are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  In this action, plaintiff alleges claims for harassment and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and for whistleblower retaliation.  For harassment, plaintiff must prove defendant created a hostile work environment.  For retaliation, he must prove defendant took adverse employment actions against him in retaliation for his protected activity.  The events these interrogatories ask about may be relevant to proving a course of conduct that amounts to an adverse employment action.    “[T]here is no requirement that an employer’s retaliatory acts constitute one swift blow, rather than a series of subtle, yet damaging, injuries.”  (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1055.)  An employee may “allege[] a retaliatory course of conduct rather than a discrete act of retaliation.”  (Id. at p. 1058.)  Such conduct may include, for example, “solicitation of negative information from subordinates.”  (Id. at p. 1059.)  These discrete incidents may not be actionable themselves but could be relevant to proving a retaliatory course of conduct.

Moreover, “[a]lthough discrimination and harassment are separate wrongs, they are sometimes closely interrelated, and even overlapping, particularly with regard to proof.”  (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 707.)  “[I]n some cases the hostile message that constitutes the harassment is conveyed through official employment actions, and therefore evidence that would otherwise be associated with a discrimination claim can form the basis of a harassment claim.”  (Id. at p. 708.)  These interrogatories may lead to evidence relevant to proving a course of conduct that constitutes either harassment or retaliation.    

Defendant argues employers are entitled to view their employees’ personal files.  That does not mean this information is not discoverable.  Generally, the basis for a discrimination or retaliation claim is that the employer did something it would otherwise be allowed to do, like firing an employee, but did it for an unlawful reason.  (See Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 358-361.)  These interrogatories ask defendant to explain why it took certain actions and to identify witnesses who may have knowledge about those actions and their motivations.  It would be probative if, for example, defendant viewed plaintiff’s personnel file to find pretextual reasons to discipline him.

Defendant’s objections to special interrogatories Nos. 30-35 are overruled.

Disposition

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant County of Los Angeles to further respond to special interrogatories is granted.  Defendant County of Los Angeles is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections to special interrogatories Nos. 30-35 within 30 days.