Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV30343, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30343    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff Ching Ching Oh filed this action against Defendant Savarna Inc., alleging wrongful termination and wage violations.

            On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories. Defendant filed its opposition on February 3, 2025.

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 Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Aronson Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            An answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) Where “the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response,” even if “the question is somewhat ambiguous.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) 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.)

            Here, Defendant asserted the same five objections to each interrogatory: (1) vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome; (2) seeks legal conclusions or expert opinions; (3) implicates attorney-client and work product privileges; (4) seeks information equally available to the propounding party; and (5) seeks privileged and confidential information.

            In its opposition to the motion, Defendant only stands on the first objection. Defendant argues that the interrogatories reference vague terms and are duplicative. These arguments are without merit. Defendant’s rebuttal separate statement shows that Defendant is objecting to common terms such as “PLAINTIFF,” “meal and rest break,” or “overtime hours.” Additionally, Plaintiff provided clarification on the terms that Defendant claimed were ambiguous. (Aronson Decl., Ex. D.)

            The interrogatories are also not duplicative, even under Defendant’s characterization. (See Opp. 6:4-21.) For example, Defendant claims that an interrogatory asking whether Defendant orally reprimanded Plaintiff for job performance is the same as an interrogatory asking whether Defendant orally reprimanded Plaintiff for employee misconduct. These are facially distinct requests. The fact that the interrogatories seek some overlapping information does not render them duplicative or unduly burdensome. “A party is permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper basis for refusing to provide discovery under another method.” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 739.)

            Defendant also argues that some interrogatories seek information held by former employees not under Defendant’s control. While Defendant is not required to seek out independent witnesses, Defendant must still answer the interrogatories to the extent possible. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a), (b).) If Defendant cannot answer the interrogatories, it must provide a statement of inability to comply. (See id., § 2030.220(c).) Either way, Defendant’s objection-only responses are improper.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide further responses to the subject special interrogatories within 20 days of this order. Sanctions are denied.

BACKGROUND

            On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff
Ching Ching Oh filed this action against Defendant Savarna Inc., alleging
wrongful termination and wage violations.

            On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff
filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories. Defendant filed its opposition on February 3, 2025.

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 Plaintiff has satisfied the meet
and confer requirement. (See Aronson Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            “Each answer in a response to
requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the
information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.220(a).) The RFAs at issue seek basic information about
Plaintiff’s employment, pay, and termination. Defendant objected to the
requests as compound and vague.

            The requests are not vague.
Defendant’s rebuttal separate statement shows that Defendant is objecting to
common terms such as “pay raise,” “job title,” and “salary.” The requests are
also not compound. They do not “contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive,
or disjunctive request.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.060(f).) Plaintiff is
allowed to include additional detail in the RFAs to clarify what he is seeking.
Defendant can also admit part of the request and deny part of the request. (Id.,
§ 2033.220(b).)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide supplemental responses to the
subject RFAs within 20 days of this order. Sanctions are denied.