Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV19888, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19888 Hearing Date: September 15, 2022 Dept: 72
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO:
(1) FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET TWO; AND (2) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Case: Ana Bertha Campos v. Natalia Granados
(21STCV19888)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Ana Bertha Campos’ Motion for an Order Compelling
a Supplemental Response to Form Interrogatories-General, Set Two is GRANTED IN
PART.
Plaintiff Ana Bertha Campos’ Motion for an Order Compelling
a Supplemental Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that plaintiff
sufficiently met and conferred before filing these motions. On May 24, 2022,
plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter by email to defendant, wherein
plaintiff requested supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1 and
17.1 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 12, 15, and 19. (Josephson Decl. ¶ 10 &
Ex. C.) The meet and confer letter is sufficient because it sets forth the
discovery at issue and plaintiff’s position as to why defendant’s responses
were insufficient. Plaintiff requested supplemental responses by May 31, 2022.
Defendant failed to respond to the letter, not even to request an extension.
(Josephson Decl. ¶ 12.)
Plaintiff Ana Bertha Campos moves for further responses from
defendant Natalia Granados to Form Interrogatories-General, Set Two, Nos. 15.1
and 17.1 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12, 15, and 19.
For Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, which asks defendant to
state all facts supporting the affirmative defenses asserted in the Answer,
defendant stated that “[d]iscovery has not yet been completed, and the facts
upon which Responding party's affirmative defenses are based have yet to be
fully developed.” Defendant explains that affirmative defenses were asserted to
avoid waiver of those defenses.
Defendant’s response is inadequate. While defendant
maintains that the response indicates that she does not have any facts yet, the
response is not quite so definitive. Rather, defendant responded that facts
supporting the affirmative defenses “have yet to be fully developed.” Defendant
is obligated to answer the interrogatory “to the extent possible” by stating
what facts defendant does have to support the affirmative defenses. (CCP §
2030.220(b) [“If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be
answered to the extent possible”].) Defendant
is also obligated to respond to the interrogatory “as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a).) It is unreasonable for defendant to maintain
that she does not have any facts supporting the affirmative defenses. Indeed, by
asserting affirmative defenses, defendant certified that the defenses “are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.”
(CCP § 128.7(b)(2).) Defendant must therefore identify each affirmative defense
and state what facts, even if such facts are meager at this stage of the
proceedings, warranted her assertion of the affirmative defense.
For Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, which asks defendant to
state facts supporting denials to requests for admission, plaintiff did not
provide the text of the corresponding requests for admission, as required by
Rule of Court 3.1345(c)(5) [separate statement must include “[i]f the response
to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another
discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular
discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other
discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth”].)
Plaintiff also did not include the corresponding requests for admission as an
exhibit to the declaration in support of the motion concerning the Form
Interrogatories. Without the text of the requests for admission, the Court
cannot determine whether the facts provided by defendant are adequate. Because
plaintiff failed to meet her burden as the moving party, no further response to
Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is required.
For Special Interrogatory No. 12, which asks defendant to
“describe all communications between ANA BERTHA CAMPOS and ‘SUPERVISOR NATALIA
GRANDOS’ relating to or regarding overtime hours worked by ANA,” defendant
responded “None.” This is adequate. Defendant’s response indicates that the
requested communications do not exist.
Plaintiff maintains that a response of “None” is nonsensical
based on defendant’s response to Special Interrogatory No. 13, in which defendant
stated that plaintiff and defendant have “knowledge regarding communications
between ANA BERTHA CAMPOS and ‘MANAGER NATALIA’ relating to overtime hours
worked by ANA.” (Josephson Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A at 4.) A substantive response
to Special Interrogatory No. 13 does not preclude defendant from responding to
Special Interrogatory No. 12 with “None.” Special Interrogatory No. 13 asked
defendant to indicate who has knowledge regarding communications relating to
overtime hours. If such communications do not exist, as defendant maintains in
her response to Special Interrogatory No. 12, then plaintiff and defendant are
the individuals who have knowledge of this assertion. In other words, based on
the broad wording of Special Interrogatory No. 13, the text of Special
Interrogatory No. 13 does not require communications between the parties about
overtime hours to have actually occurred. No further response to Special
Interrogatory No. 12 is required.
For Special Interrogatory No. 15, which asks defendant to
describe the method by which she advised employees to record overtime hours when
worked, and Special Interrogatory No. 19, which asks defendant to describe her
policies with respect to providing overtime to her employees, defendant
responded “None.” These requests are adequate. Defendant’s response indicates
that she never advised employees to record overtime hours they worked and that
she had no policies regarding the provision of overtime to her employees.
Defendant fully responded to the interrogatories. No further responses to
Special Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 19 are required.
In summary, plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling a
Supplemental Response to Form Interrogatories-General, Set Two is GRANTED as to
Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 and DENIED as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.
Within fifteen (15) days hereof, defendant Natalia Granados is ordered to
provide further verified responses, without objection, to Form
Interrogatories-General, Set Two, No. 15.1 in accordance with this ruling. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling a
Supplemental Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.
Given the mixed result on the motion concerning the Form Interrogatories, all requests for monetary sanctions concerning the Form Interrogatories are DENIED. With respect to the Special Interrogatories, even though plaintiff’s motion is denied, defendant did not request any suggested amount of sanctions or any evidence from which to calculate an appropriate amount of sanctions. (Cf. Josephson Decls. ¶¶ 16, 17.)