Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Steiner v. Carver, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Gregory Steiner’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Prior to filing a motion to compel, the moving party must meet and confer with the responding party in a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue that would be presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b), and 2033.290(b).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 requires a good faith attempt to resolve “each issue presented by the motion.” There must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App. 4th 1277, 1294.)
While meet and confer efforts certainly could and should have been more robust, the court has already addressed that by ordering the parties to meet and confer after the ex parte hearing consolidating the hearing date for these motions. As such the court finds that meet and confer efforts were sufficient.
As to the Special Interrogatories, interrogatory responses “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Further, “[a] party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. (Citation.) Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ....” (Gonzalez v. Superior Ct. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546.)
Defendant has agreed to supplement responses to Nos. 22-25. If those responses have been provided then the motion is MOOT as to those, however if they have not the motion is GRANTED as to those items as Defendant does not dispute them.
As to SPROG Nos. 16 and 17, both pertain to Defendant’s actions and efforts in letting Plaintiff know about other job opportunities in the company between October 2017 and 2018, and any efforts to determine whether Plaintiff was interested in or qualified for any job opportunities in that same time period. Defendant objected to both as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, as well as confusing as phrased and argumentative and responded “Plaintiff was specifically hired for skills, experience, and trade as a commercial truck driver. Plaintiff never inquired or made any attempt to return to work as a truck driver or in any other capacity.” As the response is somewhat evasive by not simply saying the company made no efforts and then qualifying why as they wish, the motion to compel is GRANTED.
As to the Requests for Admission, Defendant has agreed to supplement RFA Nos. 6 and 7. If those supplemented responses have been provided then the motion is MOOT, if they have not been then the motion is GRANTED as Defendant does not dispute them.
RFA Nos. 27, 28, and 29 ask for admissions that Defendant has no documents showing any written correspondence from Defendant to Plaintiff between October 2017 and October 2018 using the language “interactive process”, “reasonable accommodation”, and “alternative work”. Defendant’s responses are a list of objections as to privilege, privacy, and finally a response that Defendant “does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the request. To the extent Plaintiff suggests Responding Party did not engage in the interactive process or attempt to accommodate Plaintiff, it is denied.”
This answer does not comply with CCP § 2033.220(c), which states “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” There is no indication here that indicates Defendant has made a reasonable inquiry and the information is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit the matter. Defendant’s answers are evasive and are not code-compliant. While Defendant asserts that any confusion about its response is cleared up by its responses to Form Interrogatories, CCP § 2033.220 clearly states that “Each answer in response to request for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” This does not provide for looking at other discovery responses to clarify the answer. As such the motion to compel is GRANTED.
On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)
Defendant agreed to supplement RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 12-15, 17, 21-23, and 26. If those supplemented responses have been provided then the motion is MOOT, if they have not been then the motion is GRANTED as Defendant does not dispute them.
RFP Nos. 18 and 19 ask for all communications between Defendant and Zurich Insurance, and all communications between Defendant and Albert & Mackenzie, a law firm previously hired by Defendant. Defendant objects to these on the grounds of confidentiality, privilege, and relevance. Defendant argues the workers compensation claim is irrelevant to this matter. Defendant asserts the communications as to the law firm are privileged under attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
Plaintiff does not state how such communications about the workers compensation claim are relevant to this action, but simply asserts that they are directly relevant to the claims for failure to accommodate and wrongful termination. Further, as Plaintiff is requesting all communications between Defendant and its counsel in the workers compensation case, privilege is clearly going to be an issue. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for these two requests and the motion is DENIED as to these two items.
Though Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,000 for each motion against Defendant’s counsel, Defendant has shown substantial justification as to the motion to compel further responses for requests for production. Further, Plaintiff’s papers provide no support for the asserted $4,000 amount in sanctions. As such, the court declines to award sanctions at this time.
Moving party to give notice.