Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV21986, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21986    Hearing Date: June 13, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs Erika Zimmerman and Kenya Johnson filed this action against various defendants, alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage violations. Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on March 6, 2025. 

            On April 1, April 21, and May 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant nine motions to compel further responses from Defendant Growth Management, Inc. Defendant filed its oppositions on June 5, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their replies on June 10, 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).)

DISCUSSION

I. Statements of Compliance or Inability to Comply

            A statement of compliance “shall state that the production . . . 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.) A statement of inability to comply “shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Defendant’s responses to RFPs do not satisfy these requirements.

II. Violations Pertaining to Plaintiffs

            Plaintiffs may discover information pertaining to violations against themselves or that they witnessed and reported, as well as information pertaining to violations they were accused of. Plaintiffs may also obtain information on their own terminations. Other violations that do not involve Plaintiffs are not relevant to the lawsuit. Plaintiffs are not suing for the underlying violations, but for being retaliated against after they reported the violations. This is not a class action or representative suit on behalf of other aggrieved individuals. Plaintiffs are not entitled to discover all potential violations just because they reported some violations. In the same vein, Plaintiffs cannot obtain information on all potential witnesses to any violation, or all of Defendant’s employees. The requests are not tailored to individuals related to Plaintiffs’ claims.

            To the extent that the Court allows RFPs seeking documents related to complaints, reports, or grievances, the requests are limited to complaints, reports, or grievances made by Plaintiffs.      

III. Compilation

            “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

            Defendant has not adequately demonstrated the prerequisites for applying section 2030.230, and its references to external documents are not in sufficient detail to ascertain the answer to the SROGs at issue. 

IV. Witness Information

            “The disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-50.) For potential witnesses who are pertinent to Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendant has not articulated a reasonable expectation of privacy in mere contact information. Contact information does not constitute protected health information under HIPAA. (See 42 U.S.C. § 1320d(4); 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.) Thus, pertinent witness information must be disclosed.   

V. Incomplete Answer

            An answer to an interrogatory must be as complete and straightforward as possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) Defendants’ responses do not fully answer each part of the question or provide all of the information requested.  

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motions are granted in part as set forth below. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.

Plaintiff Johnson’s RFP, Set One:

• GRANTED as to Nos. 25-36, 42, 45, 49, 52, 55, 69, 72, 75, 77-82, 84, 85, 96, 107, and 108.
• DENIED as to Nos. 38, 54, 73, 76, 94, 95, 97-106, 109, and 113.

Plaintiff Johnson’s RFP, Set Two:

• GRANTED as to Nos. 114-119.

Plaintiff Zimmerman’s RFP, Set One:

• GRANTED as to Nos. 15, 29-36, 43, 45, 49, 52, 55, 62, 72, 75, 78-82, 107, and 108. 
• DENIED as to Nos. 38, 54, 56, 73, 76, 77, 94, 95-106, 109, and 113.

Plaintiff Zimmerman’s RFP, Set Two:

• GRANTED as to Nos. 116-119 and 122.
• DENIED as to Nos. 114 and 115.

Plaintiff Zimmerman’s SROG, Set One:

• GRANTED as to Nos. 7, 8, 18, 19, and 49.
• DENIED as to Nos. 22, 24, 25, 30, 34, 37, 41-43, and 47.

Plaintiff Zimmerman’s SROG, Set Two:

• GRANTED as to Nos. 62 and 66.
• DENIED as to Nos. 51-59, and 61.

Plaintiff’s Johnson’s SROG, Set One:

• DENIED as to Nos. 15, 16, 25, 32, 33-35, and 40.