Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV20733, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20733    Hearing Date: October 28, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff Aerrianna McClellan filed this action against Defendants Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. and Katie Williams, asserting FEHA claims and wage violations.

            On September 30, 2024, Defendant Kiewit filed the instant four motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production and interrogatories. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

            A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Shook Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Requests for Production

            The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.)

            Defendant’s separate statement sets forth good cause for the requested documents. Plaintiff responded to each RFP with the same objections:

“Objection. This request seeks documents that may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. This request seeks documents that may be protected from disclosure by Plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to Privacy and/or the Constitutional Right to Privacy of third parties. This request is overly broad, burdensome and harassing as many, if not the majority, of documents responsive to this request are not only equally available to propounding party, but to some extent exclusively available to propounding party to the exclusion of Plaintiff.”

Because Defendant has established good cause, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to justify her objections. Plaintiff fails to do so. Thus, further responses are warranted.

II. Interrogatories

A party “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right . . . [and] the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

Plaintiff asserted similar objections to the interrogatories at issue but has failed to justify those objections. Thus, further responses are warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Kiewit’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to the discovery requests at issue within 20 days of this order.