Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 22PSCV01073, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01073, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR ORDER COMEPLLING ANSWERS AND FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED, but the court declines to impose monetary sanctions upon Defendant.

This is a wrongful termination case. Plaintiff JENNIFER MOSKAL alleges the following against Defendant CASA COLINA HOSPITAL AND CENTERS FOR HEALTH CARE: Plaintiff reported violations of patient care standards, including the sexual exploitation of a patient, drug use with patient, and sexual harassment, to which Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating her employment.

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit for

1. Retaliation/Wrongful Termination (Health & Safety Code § 1278.5);

2. Retaliation/Wrongful Termination (Labor Code § 1102.5)

3. Retaliation/Wrongful Termination (Gov’t Code § 12940 (h));

4. Wrongful Termination (Public Policy);

5. Failure to Prevent Retaliation (Gov’t Code § 12940 (k));

6. Sexual Harassment (Gov’t Code § 12940 (J)(1));

7. Disability Discrimination (Gov’t Code § 12940 (a));

8. Age Discrimination (Gov’t Code § 12940 (a));

9. Failure to Produce Documents (Labor Code §1198.5);

10. Unfair Competition ( Bus.& Prof. Code §17200); and

11. Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to various interrogatories pursuant to CCP section 2030.300.

The propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for production if it believes the responses received are evasive or incomplete, the attempt to produce writings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or inadequate, the statement of compliance is incomplete, or if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a); 2031.310(a).) The motion must be accompanied by a good-faith meet and confer declaration, (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040), and be accompanied by a separate statement. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1345.)

As an additional requirement only as to requests for production, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “[T]hat burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. App. 4th 443, 447 (2002).) The opposing party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.)

Unless extended, the motion must be filed “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 propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300(c)) (emphasis added); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (“the time within which to make a motion to compel . . . is mandatory and jurisdictional.”).) Else, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Id.).

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a), “[i]f a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” There is no specific deadline for a motion to compel compliance and no meet and confer requirement.

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to various form interrogatories, all pertaining to Plaintiff’s termination and the reasons (and supporting documents and information) pertaining to it. Before turning to the relief sought, the court turns to Defendant’s opposing arguments as the crux of the opposition address procedural defects with Plaintiff’s motion.

First, Defendant avers that the motion fails to meet basic motion standards. The court agrees.

The motion, which is no more than a couple of pages (and 29 lines long), does not contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(b)). Additionally, the motion fails to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1110 which requires that notice of motion to state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order. Here, neither the date, time, nor location of the scheduled hearing appear on the notice.

However, as noted by Defendant’s own citation, “The purpose of the notice requirements ‘is to cause the moving party to sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the court.’” (Opp. pp. 5-6, quoting Luri v. Greenwald (2003 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125.) Here, Defendant is adequately put on notice of the information sought based upon the separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345, subd. (c) [“A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.”].)

Therefore, while Plaintiff failed to comply with various mandatory California Rules of Court, the court elects to exercise its inherent authority to overlook those defects for the purpose of adjudicating the motion on its merits.[1]

Second, Defendant avers that the motion is untimely. (Opp. p. 4.) The court disagrees because the parties agreed to extensions.

As explained above, a motion to compel is due no later than 45 days later (plus 2 days for electronic service) from the date a verified response is provided. Defendant avers that it served responses on April 28, 2023, making a motion to compel due no later than June 14, 2023, but Plaintiff did not file the motion until July 5, 2023—21 days late.

Here, the court disagrees because Plaintiff provided three extensions to provide code-compliant responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶4 [Defendant requested three extensions of time to respond: to March 6, 20023, to March 13, 2023, and then to March 21, 2023.].) On April 30, 2023, Defendant served further responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶13(d).) However, the responses were deficient, leading ultimately to a fourth meet and confer on May 15, 2023, wherein Defense Counsel agreed to provide supplement further verified responses. The parties agreed to extend, by an additional 30 days, the timing of any necessary motion directed at the forthcoming responses. (Lopez Decl., ¶13(g).) (Thirty days from May 15, 2023 is June 14, 2023.) However, despite inquiring about the status of responses on June 8, 2023, no response was received. Effectively, the date that the parties agreed to extend the responses was to June 14, 2023. Forty-five days from June 14, 2023 is July 29, 2023, making the motion timely because the motion was filed on July 5, 2023.[2] To the extent that Defendant may argue that these communications did not amount to extensions, the email exchanges between the parties’ counsel were entitled ‘Meet and Confer/Extensions.’ (Reply p. 3) (emphasis added).

Third, Defendant avers Plaintiff did not engage in meet and confer efforts because the separate statement is different than the interrogatories subject to the meet and confer. The court is unpersuaded.

Here, while the exact interrogatories may not have been discussed, the discovery is, for the most part, regarding one issue: reasons for the employee’s termination (i.e., policies, guidelines, procedures, rules, etc.).[3] (See Reply p. 2 [“The meet and confer process began with a 4-page letter . . . This is a major concern. When will your client know why it terminated Ms. Moskal?”].) Thus, it is disingenuous for Defendant to argue that the basis of the subject interrogatories has not been discussed.

This then leads to the merits of the motion: the interrogatories are relevant, unambiguous, and not burdensome, making them discoverable, merits of which Defendant does not address in its opposition.[4]

All in all, as the parties engaged in meet and confer efforts and the discovery is discoverable, the court grants the motion. As for monetary sanctions, the court declines to impose them.

[1] Defendant also argues that the motion appears to be three separate motions combined into one motion. (Opp. p. 6:12-13.) Absent an elaboration, the court is uncertain how so as the separate statement only pertains to form interrogatories, which is the basis of the motion.

[2] To the extent that Defendant relies upon Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Frye) (2022) 84 Ca 5th 127 for its proposition that the motion is untimely, the case is inapposite as the parties there did not agree to an extension of code-complaint responses. (Id. at p. 132 [“Petitioner's counsel sought an extension on a motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories, but received no response to the request. Therefore, on May 5, 20212, petitioner went forward and filed notice of such a motion.”].)

[3] More specifically, some of the interrogatories include, inter alia, information pertaining to (i) persons responsible for Plaintiff’s termination and all warnings given with respect to Plaintiff’s job performance (interrogatory 201.4); (ii) identify Plaintiff’s job duties and who was instated to take over her job after Plaintiff’s termination (201.6); (iii) whether Plaintiff required work accommodations (204.5.)

[4] To many of the interrogatories, Defendants did not provide complete responses. For example, as to interrogatory 201.1 wherein Defendant was asked to provide all reasons for Plaintiff’s termination, Defendant provided a vague answer and incomplete answer: “Plaintiff admitted to blurring professional boundaries with clients including by accepting gifts from patients.” As the interrogatory asked for all reasons for termination, the response is incomplete.