Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV40649, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV40649 Hearing Date: August 9, 2022 Dept: 30
Dept. 30
Calendar No.
Jane RPV Doe vs.
Rowland Unified School District, et. al., Case No. 20STCV40649
Tentative Ruling re:
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Request for
Sanctions
Defendants Rowland Unified School
District and Yesenia Alvarez move for an order
compelling Plaintiff Jane RPV Doe’s (Plaintiff) further responses to
Special Interrogatories (Set One). The motion is denied.
A motion to compel further
responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if
the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an
unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce
documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized
objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) If
a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding
party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior
Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Defendants served the Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff
on April 27, 2022. (Greer Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Special Interrogatory No. 1 asked
Plaintiff to “[s]tate all facts supporting your contention that plaintiff ‘came
to be under the direction and control of Munguia, who used his position of
authority and trust over plaintiff to sexually abuse and harass her.’” Special
Interrogatory No. 10 asked Plaintiff to ‘[s]tate all facts supporting your
contention that MUNGUIA continued to ‘engage in such conduct with Plaintiff.’ ”
Plaintiff served only objections on June 1, 2022, and served further
answers on June 30, 2022. (Moore Decl. ¶ 3.) In her response to Interrogatory
No. 1, Plaintiff stated that Munguia was Plaintiff’s elementary school teacher,
described several incidents of abuse by Munguia as showing that “Munguia used
his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff,” and described the effects
of Munguia’s abuse on Plaintiff’s well-being.
Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 10 reads, “Carlos Munguia continued his
conduct of harassing, molesting, and assaulting Plaintiff by rubbing and touching her
hand and wrist in the classroom on multiple occasions and touching and
kissing her in the
computer lab and attempting to kiss her a second time.”
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and evasive, and describe the
responses as stating “allegations” rather than facts. Defendants cite the rule
that “a party may not provide deftly worded
conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo
v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) The court in Deyo went
on to explain, “A party cannot state, ‘not applicable’ where the interrogatory
is clearly applicable to him. [Citation.] Evasive answers such as, ‘I don't
recall’ are an open invitation to sanctions. [Citation.] . . . [I]t is
not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition,’ ‘See my pleading,’ or
‘See the financial statement.’ ” (Ibid.)
Defendants have not specified any portion of Plaintiff’s responses
that are untruthful, or any respect in which Plaintiff’s responses evade the
questions asked. Plaintiff’s responses are not analogous to those described by
the court in Deyo as incomplete or evasive. While a responding party “must furnish information from all
sources under his or her control” (Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior
Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504), Defendants have not presented any evidence
showing that Plaintiff’s responses have failed to include all available
information.
It appears that the primary reason for Defendants’ motion is that
Plaintiff’s responses repeat facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. This is
not proper grounds for compelling further answers; a response is not “evasive
or incomplete” simply because it repeats facts that the plaintiff has
previously alleged. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd.
(a).)
Sanctions
“The court shall 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).)
Monetary sanctions are warranted here based on Defendants’
unsuccessful motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff requests sanctions
against Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $2,740, based on a rate
of $400 per hour, for 4.2 hours to draft the Opposition and supporting papers,
and 2.5 hours to review the Reply and appear at the hearing (6.7 hours total),
plus $60 for filing fees. (Greer Decl. ¶ 15.)
Defendants and Defendants’ counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s
counsel $2,740 within thirty (30) days of today’s date.