Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV37341, Date: 2023-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37341    Hearing Date: July 5, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff Sandra Sierra filed this action against Defendant Synergetic Technologies Group, Inc., asserting causes of action for discrimination, harassment, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages, unfair business practices, constructive discharge, and failure to deliver personnel file.

            On May 30, 2023, Defendant filed the instant two motions to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to requests for production and special interrogatories. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 21, 2023, addressing the RFPs but not the SROGs. Defendant replied on June 27, 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).)

On receipt of a response to a request for inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to

comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, 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 Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Mulvaney Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Neyestani Decl., Ex. B.) The parties could not meet and confer due to scheduling conflicts that were not Defendant’s fault. Defendant only filed this motion after Plaintiff stopped responding to correspondence.

DISCUSSION

I. Requests for Production

            The requests ask for communications Plaintiff had regarding her claims against Defendant or regarding Defendant’s principal, communications between Plaintiff and Defendant’s employees, and communications between Plaintiff and Defendant’s principal. In response to each request, Plaintiff identified pertinent documents as follows: “Including but not limited to: Resignation email.”  

            This is not a code-compliant response. To the extent Plaintiff intends to comply with the RFPs, her response is subject to specific requirements: “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

Presently, the response indicates that Plaintiff is in possession of responsive documents but implies that there are more documents than just the resignation email. The response is ambiguous as to whether the resignation email constitutes the sole responsive document and does not indicate whether Plaintiff is withholding any documents. To the extent Plaintiff cannot comply with any part of the RFPs, that requires a specific response as well. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210(a)(2).) The fact that Plaintiff has produced documents does not absolve her obligation to provide a code-compliant response.

II. Special Interrogatories

            The SROGs ask for basic information related to Plaintiff’s claims, namely the facts supporting each cause of action and an estimation of damages. Plaintiff asserted boilerplate objections to each request but does not oppose the motion, thereby offering no reason for not answering the interrogatories. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [“the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory”].)

III. Sanctions

            Plaintiff has offered no substantial justification for her failure to properly respond to discovery. Therefore, sanctions are warranted. Given the simplicity of the motions and partial lack of opposition, the Court awards $945, representing 3 hours at $275 per hour, plus $120 in filing fees. (See Mulvaney Decl. ¶ 6.)   

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide supplemental responses to SROGs and RFPs within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $945, to be paid within 30 days.