Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV31956, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31956    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Dominique Peatry filed this action against Toluca Lake Collective, Inc. on September 29, 2022. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on March 24, 2023, various wage and hour violations.   

            On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories. Defendant filed a belated opposition on September 19, 2023.

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), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Gutierrez Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. FROG Nos. 215.1 and 215.2

FROG Nos. 215.1 and 215.2 ask for information on individuals who were interviewed or provided a statement regarding the adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff. (Gutierrez Decl., Ex. A.) Defendant responded with a variety of boilerplate objections and then referenced 200 pages of documents without context or explanation. (Ibid.)

Referencing separate documents is not proper just because the answer may be found somewhere within the production. Rather, a responding party may only rely on a reference to documents if responding to the interrogatory would require a compilation or summary of the documents, and the burden and expense of preparing the compilation would be substantially the same for both parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) Additionally, in referencing documents, a responding party must provide “sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Ibid.) Defendant’s response does not satisfy the prerequisites for Section 2030.230. FROG Nos. 215.1 and 215.2 request basic witness information, which does not require a compilation, nor is the reference sufficiently detailed for Plaintiff to identify the information sought.    

II. FROG No. 216.1

            FROG No. 216.1 asks for facts, witnesses, and documents supporting Defendant’s denials and affirmative responses. (Gutierrez Decl., Ex. A.) Defendant responded with a variety of boilerplate objections and then referenced the same 200 pages of documents without context or explanation. (Ibid.)

            Defendant’s response is inadequate for the same reasons discussed above. The improper reference to documents is further demonstrated by the fact that Defendant references the same 200 pages for two different interrogatories.

III. Late Opposition

            Defendant’s late opposition argues that the motion is moot because Defendant previously agreed to provide supplemental responses and did provide supplemental responses. Defendant contends that despite this, Plaintiff filed the motion without meeting and conferring. However, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff sent meet and confer correspondence on August 11, 15, and 24. (Hodge Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.) On August 23, Defendant made clear that it would not provide further responses to FROG Nos. 215.1, 215.2, and 216.1. (Id., Ex. E.) Plaintiff replied on August 24, responding to Defendant’s arguments and indicating her intent to file the motion to compel because it was clear that Defendant would not provide a further response. (Id., Ex. G.) Therefore, Defendant’s own evidence shows that Plaintiff properly met and conferred and that Defendant refused to provide further responses, thus necessitating this motion.  

            Defendant eventually provided supplemental responses on September 19, 2023, after this motion was filed and on the same day as its late opposition. This does not moot the motion or provide substantial justification for the delay. Sanctions are still warranted, in the amount of $900. (See Gutierrez Decl. ¶¶ 21-22.)  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $900, to be paid within 30 days.