Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV31917, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31917    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff Veronica Pacheco filed this action against Defendants Roberto Guzman and Antonio Esquivel, asserting causes of action stemming from alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault. Plaintiff also alleges wage violations.

            On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant four motions to compel further responses from Defendants to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendants have not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Upon receiving responses to requests for inspection 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), 2031.310(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), 2031.310(b)(2).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Sharpe Decl.)  

DISCUSSION

            Defendants’ responses are either evasive, incomplete, or consist of boilerplate objections. The information sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendants have not articulated any overriding privacy interest. (See Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Plaintiff is entitled to basic witness information. (See People v. Dixon (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 414, 443.) Defendants do not articulate any legal basis for their assertion that the right against self-incrimination allows them to avoid responding to the subject discovery. Defendants do not oppose the motions, conceding that their responses are deficient.

            As Defendants have failed to provide substantial justification for their deficient responses, sanctions are warranted. Given the simplicity of the motions and lack of opposition, the Court finds the reasonable amount to be $1,656, representing 4 hours at $400 per hour, plus $56 in electronic filing costs. (See Sharpe Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendants are to serve further responses to the subject discovery within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded against Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $1,656, to be paid within 30 days.