Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV44559, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44559    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff Cristal Correa initiated this employment discrimination action against Defendants Staffing Network Holdings, LLC and Quality Placement Authority LLC.

The instant motions concern Form Interrogatories­–General and Form Interrogatories–Employment propounded by Plaintiff to Defendant Staffing Network Holdings, LLC. The interrogatories were propounded on May 2, 2022. After three extensions, the deadline for Defendant to respond was July 1, 2022. Plaintiff denied a fourth extension, and on July 1, Defendant served responses consisting of purely objections. Defendant expressed that it would supplement the production with substantive responses, but having received none, Plaintiff filed the instant motions on July 21, 2022. Defendant provided supplemental responses that same day.

LEGAL STANDARD

 On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the issue informally. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)(1).) The Court notes that Plaintiff has not satisfied the meet and confer requirement. The only purported “meet and confer” prior to the motions was Plaintiff’s correspondence to Defendant rejecting Defendant’s request for a fourth extension. (See Garcia Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 3.) That cannot serve as an adequate meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses, as Defendant had not served its responses at that time. Labeling the email “meet and confer” does not make it so. No meet and confer occurred after Defendant served its responses.

Nevertheless, the parties’ impasse and the adequacy of Defendant’s responses can be ascertained from the parties’ respective briefs and supporting papers. Therefore, the Court will proceed on the merits. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)(2).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant acknowledges that it served objection-only responses merely to preserve them after Plaintiff refused to grant a fourth extension. (Opp. 2:6-8.) Defendant makes no attempt to actually substantiate the validity of the objections. Defendant claims that it served substantive supplemental responses after the motions were filed. (Opp. 2:25-28.) However, the responses to the Employment Form Interrogatories remain deficient.

Defendant’s responses assert the same boilerplate, unsubstantiated objections and are also incomplete because they do not address all subparts of the interrogatories. That discovery is ongoing is not an excuse to refrain from responding with the information currently available. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a) [“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”].) Form Interrogatories are drafted and approved by the Judicial Council and seek basic information fundamental to routine discovery. (See Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250.) As such, further responses are warranted. Plaintiff requests supplemental responses by September 2, 2022. (Reply 3:7-9.)

Sanctions are unwarranted because Plaintiff did not meet and confer regarding the substance of Defendant’s responses prior to filing its motions.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories–Employment, Set One. Defendant is to produce supplemental responses by September 2, 2022. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.