Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV32589, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32589    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually harassed by his supervisor. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant stole gratuities from a Service Charge customers paid.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories – employment, set one from Defendant W&V Partners, LLC. Plaintiff also requests sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

           Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories – employment, set one from Defendant W&V Partners, LLC is GRANTED as to Interrogatories 207.1, 209.2, and 217.1. Further responses are due, without objection, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant only is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,560. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories - Employment

Discussion

            Defendant served responses on November 18, 2022. The 45 (plus 5) day deadline set forth in CCP § 2030.300(c) to bring a motion to compel would have expired on January 9, 2023, but the parties agreed in writing to extend the deadline to February 13, 2023. (Declaration of Alexander C. Blackburn, ¶ 7; Exh. 3.)

            The Declaration of Alexander C. Blackburn, Exh. 1, reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel attempt to meet and confer prior to bringing this motion, as required by CCP § 2030.300(b)(1), which states: “A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300(b)(1).) In turn, § 2016.040 states: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2016.040 [bold emphasis added].)  However, Defendant’s counsel did not respond in good faith and Plaintiff's counsel contends that Defendant's counsel kept trying to put off a written meet and confer in favor of a verbal discussion. (Blackburn Decl., Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

            The Court now addresses the form interrogatories set forth in the Separate Statement.

¿         Interrogatories 207.1, 209.2: GRANTED.

            The objections are all OVERRULED. Defendant did not even file an opposing separate statement nor attempt to justify the objections. “[I]if 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.)

            Moreover, the response that the interrogatory is irrelevant because responding party was not Plaintiff’s employer is insufficient. Defendant must set forth a response which explains why Defendant is not Plaintiff’s employer. Further, if Defendant does not have personal knowledge of the information sought, Defendant must provide a response that complies with CCP § 2030.220(c):

(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

(Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220.)

¿         Interrogatory No. 217.1: GRANTED.

The objections are all OVERRULED, as Defendant did not justify them. 

The response to subpart (b) was incomplete in that it does not set forth facts stating why Defendant was not Plaintiff’s employer. The response to subpart (c) is improper, as Plaintiff is entitled to Scott Kay’s contact information. “Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The response to subpart (d) is insufficient.

Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, "See my deposition," "See my pleading," or "See the financial statement." Indeed, if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.

(Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-84 [emphasis added].)

            Further responses are due, without objection, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant only is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,560 (5 total hours at $500/hour, plus $60 filing fee—Blackburn Decl., ¶¶ 23, 24.) The Court does not find that Defendant acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.300(d).) Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days.