Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV11071, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV11071 Hearing Date: October 28, 2024 Dept: 14
#2
Case Background
This is an action for violations of the FEHA, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and whistleblower retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that after she began her employment as a nurse practitioner for Defendants, she suffered harassment from an internal medicine specialist who made inappropriate sexual comments to her and others.
On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff Edna Yarashevich filed her Complaint against Defendants Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center and Sebo Amirkhanian Namagerdy.
On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
On September 4, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to compel discovery.
On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed her opposition.
Instant Pleading
Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories.
Decision
Defendants’ motion to compel discovery is DENIED.
Discussion
Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories. Defendants’ counsel, Gayane Muradyan, alleges the interrogatories were served on June 21, 2024 and that she has not received responses as of the date this motion was filed. (Muradyan Decl., ¶¶2, 13.)
Plaintiff’s counsel, Clare Moran, represents that she did not receive the interrogatories and did not know responses were due until August 8, 2024, when Gayane demanded responses. (Moran Decl., ¶6.) Moran alleges Muradyan served them on Beatriz Alfaro, Joshua Boxer, and Boxer’s assistant. (Id.) Alfaro left Moran’s firm in December 2023 and Moran previously requested that Defendants serve Moran and her legal assistant for all correspondence after December 2023. (Id., ¶5.) Boxer is a senior associate who does not handle day-to-day tasks and does not share his assistant with Moran. (Id., ¶¶3, 6.) Moran served responses on September 6, 2024. (Id.)
On reply, Muradyan argues service was not improper because the interrogatories were served on Boxer. Additionally, Muradyan argues Moran made empty promises to serve discovery intended to delay discovery. Muradyan does not deny that responses were served on September 6, 2024.
Although the interrogatories were improperly served on Alfaro, who no longer works at Moran’s firm, they were also served on Boxer and his assistant. Boxer is named as one of Plaintiff’s attorneys in both the original Complaint and the First Amended Complaint. Additionally, Boxer is the senior attorney assigned to this case. Because Boxer is an attorney of record working on this case, Plaintiff should have had notice of the interrogatories. However, it was also unreasonable for Muradyan to continue serving Alfaro when she knew Alfaro was no longer working at Moran’s firm. The Court finds that both parties acted unreasonably. This dispute should have been resolved without court intervention.
The Court finds that because Plaintiff served responses, the motion to compel initial responses to the interrogatories is DENIED. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to compel discovery is DENIED.