Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV27613, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27613    Hearing Date: June 23, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Daniel Fierros initiated this employment action against Defendant County of Los Angeles on August 24, 2022. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on November 16, 2022, asserting seven causes of action under FEHA for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent.

            Defendant presently moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Upon receiving responses to requests for admission or interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the party finds that an objection is without merit or an answer is incomplete or evasive. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing a good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2033.290(b)(1).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Franco Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Requests for Admission

            RFA No. 2 asked Plaintiff to admit that he has not been terminated. Plaintiff responded as follows: “Plaintiff admits he has not been formally discharged at the time of this response; however, Defendant is actively constructively discharging Plaintiff.”

            The Court deems the matter admitted because Plaintiff admitted that he has not been formally discharged. The remainder of the response is superfluous.

II. Form Interrogatories

            FROG No. 210.4 asked if Plaintiff has attempted to minimize lost income, and if so, to describe how. Plaintiff responded as follows: “Yes. Plaintiff has attempted to return to work with accommodations and has persisted in his requests for permission to perform outside employment. He has also continued therapy in hopes of further recovery.”

            This is a complete response to this particular interrogatory. To the extent Defendant seeks further information, it can propound additional discovery requests or conduct a deposition.

III. Special Interrogatories

            SROG No. 9 asked Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his contention that Defendant retaliated against him. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response is improper because Plaintiff merely copied allegations from his complaint.

            Plaintiff has sufficiently responded to the interrogatory by stating the facts that he contends support his retaliation claim. The response is not deficient just because the facts parallel the allegations in the complaint, or because Defendant does not believe it demonstrates retaliation. The merits can be litigated through a different motion, such as summary judgment. The Court will not compel Plaintiff to change his answer just because Defendant is unsatisfied with the response. If Defendant seeks further information, it can propound additional discovery requests or conduct a deposition.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.