Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV00602, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 22CHCV00602    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 11/15/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Joanna Delira

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Aragon Escrow Solutions, Inc.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Aragon Escrow Solutions, Inc. to produce supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s second set of Special Interrogatories, Nos. 34-35, and 40-41, and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant Aragon Escrow Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $5,660.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joanna Delira (“Plaintiff” or “Delira”) initiated this action by filing a Complaint on August 5, 2022. Subsequently, on August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Aragon Escrow Solutions, Inc. (“Aragon Escrow”), Enrique Campos (“Campos”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 50. The FAC alleges nine causes of action: (1) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5, (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (3) Failure to Pay Wages/Overtime in Violation of Labor Code section 510, (4) Failure to Provide Rest and Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code section 512, (5) Failure to Pay Timely Wages in Violation of Labor Code section 204, (6) Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Statements in Violation of Labor Code section 226, (7) Waiting Time Penalty Pursuant to Labor Code section 203, (8) Failure to Permit Inspection of Personnel and Payroll Records in Violation of California Labor Code sections 226(b) and 1198.5, (9) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices in Violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. Subsequently, Defendants filed their joint Answer to the FAC on September 6, 2024.

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses from Aragon Escrow to her Special Interrogatories, Set Two (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on January 28, 2025, Aragon Escrow filed its Opposition, and Plaintiff submitted her Reply on February 3, 2025.

ANALYSIS

“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).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of this motion must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

The 45-day deadline “is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

“Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

Here, Aragon Escrow served its initial verified responses to Plaintiff's second set of Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) on September 13, 2024. (Idrees Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. “2.”) Subsequently, Aragon Escrow served its supplemental responses via email on October 28, 2024. (Ibid.) The service of the supplemental responses established the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel as December 16, 2024, calculated based on a 45-day period with an extension of two court days per Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3), accounting for the method of electronic service (Vawter Decl. Exh. “2”). The Motion was filed on November 15, 2024.

Therefore, the Court finds the Motion is filed timely as it was filed prior to the established deadline.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Idrees Decl. ¶ 3.)

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(2) explicitly states that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: ... (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories.” “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Here, Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

B.     Motion to Compel Further Responses to SROG Nos. 34-35, and 40-41, Set Two

“As a general matter, the statutory scheme imposes no obligation on a party propounding interrogatories to establish good cause or prove up the merits of any underlying claims.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.) Indeed, a litigant “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Id. at p. 541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422.)

Accordingly, the Court will proceed to examine whether Aragon Escrow’s objections have satisfied its burden to show cause when considered in light of the arguments presented by Plaintiff.

1)      SROG No. 34

SROG No. 34 states: “Identify all DOCUMENTS related to the OWNERSHIP OR INTEREST of Jorge Campos and Enrique Campos in Century 21 Plaza.” ¶ "OWNERSHIP OR INTEREST" shall mean any legal or financial stake held by Jorge Campos and Enrique Campos in Century 21 Plaza, including but not limited to ownership shares, partnership agreements, or any other form of business interest).” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 2.)

Aragon Escrow objects to SROG No. 34 on the grounds that “Century 21 Plaza is not a named party in this litigation,” and that “Plaintiff does not allege that she worked for Century 21 Plaza and privacy grounds.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 2.)

Plaintiff asserts that good causes exist to compel further responses in this interrogatory as the request calls for Defendant Campos and Jorge Campos’s interest in Century 21 Plaza because Plaintiff alleges that there was a unity of ownership between Century 21 Plaza and Aragon Escrow. (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 2.) Plaintiff argues that the request is proper and relevant as it is necessary for Plaintiff to understand whether Century 21 Plaza should be brought in as an alter ego entity to Defendant Aragon Escrow. (Id. at p. 3.)

Moreover, Plaintiff contends that Defendants provided information in discovery demonstrating that Century 21 Plaza is an alter ego of Aragon Escrow. (Reply at p. 3.) Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that the information requested in SROG No. 34 will defeat the alleged defense that Defendants terminated Plaintiff because business was suffering. (Id. at p. 4.) Furthermore, the information concerning the relationship between Aragon Escrow and Century 21 Plaza is relevant for Plaintiff’s motion for leave to add Century 21 Plaza as a DOE defendant as an alter ego entity to Aragon Escrow. (Ibid.)

The Court notes that under California law, discovery is broadly permitted for any information that is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Aragon Escrow’s objection on the grounds that Century 21 Plaza is currently not a name party to the litigation alone is insufficient. The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument persuasive as the information is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding Defendants’ liability.

The Court also rejects Aragon Escrow’s objection based on privacy.

It is well established that the burden is on “the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion,” and then the court must “weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 (Williams).)

Here, Aragon Escrow merely alleges that “Plaintiff does not allege that she worked for Century 21 Plaza and privacy grounds.” Aragon Escrow entirely fails to establish the extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, as required by law. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.) A generalized assertion of privacy rights, without identifying the affected party or explaining the nature of the alleged invasion, is insufficient to sustain such an objection.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Aragon Escrow’s objections asserted in its responses to SROG No. 34. The Court GRANTS the Motion as to SROG No. 34.

2)      SROG No. 35

SROG No. 35 requests: “State the reasons for Plaintiff’s TERMINATION and provide all DOCUMENTS supporting those reasons.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 3.)

In its responses to SROG No. 35, Aragon Escrow stated: “The termination of Plaintiff, and other employees at Aragon Escrow Solutions Inc., was due to loss of business. It was during the pandemic. Most business were shut down or shutting down. . . . As for the request for production of documents we object because this is Special Interrogatories and privacy grounds.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement at p. 3.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 subdivision (b) sets forth the scope of interrogatories, providing in pertinent part that “[a]n interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” “Interrogatories may be used to discover the existence of documents in the other party's possession. [Citation.] If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1190 (Best Products).)

Here, the request to “provide all DOCUMENTS supporting those reasons” could be interpreted as an improper attempt to compel production through an interrogatory rather than a separate document request. However, the Court observes that in Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, dated October 4, 2024, clarified this. It stated, in relevant part, that:

“SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35 Your response to Special Interrogatory Request No 35 is deficient, in part. The request also asks to describe all documents that support the decision to terminate Plaintiff, which the request fails to do. Please provide supplemental responses to comply with this request.”

(Idrees Decl. Ex. “3.”) (Underlines added.)

            Aragon Escrow acknowledges that it is obligated to provide a description of the document. This dispute over terminology – whether the request seeks to “describe” rather than “produce” documents – should have been resolved through a meaningful meet and confer process. Plaintiff explicitly clarified in her meet and confer letter that the request sought identification of supporting documents, not their production. Despite this clarification, Aragon Escrow persisted in objecting on the same grounds in its subsequent supplemental responses, rendering its objection meritless. By refusing to identify documents, it hinders Plaintiff’s ability to draft proper Requests for Production.

            Therefore, the Court OVERRULS the objections on this basis.

            Aragon Escrow’s privacy objection suffers the same deficiency as the Court has identified previously, is therefore OVERRULED.

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to SROG No. 35.

3)      SROG No. 40

SROG No. 40 states, “Identify all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS discussing the potential SALE, MERGER, or DISSOLUTION of ARAGON ESCROW SOLUTIONS, INC. during Plaintiff's employment.” ¶ “SALE, MERGER, or DISSOLUTION” shall mean any potential or planned transactions involving the transfer, combination, or closure of the company’s business operations.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 5.)

Aragon Escrow responded to SROG 40 by stating: “There are no documents for sale of the business because Aragon Escrow Solutions Inc. was not put up for sale. The decision to dissolve the company, based on financial hardship, was made by Enrique Campos.” “Responding party objects on the grounds that this request calls for the revelation of communication between Responding Party and his attorney’s office, tax and financial plans. Also objects on the grounds of privacy laws.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement at p. 5.)

Plaintiff argues that Aragon Escrow’s responses are deficient because it calls for identification of all documents and communications related to dissolution of the business; however, “Defendant improperly self-limited the response to only the sale of the business, which is understood that it did not occur.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 5.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that SROG No. 40 is necessary for her to investigate Defendant’s purported reason for termination. (Ibid.)

The Court finds Aragon Escrow’s responses to SROG No. 40 incomplete.

Furthermore, the Court finds Aragon Escrow’s objection on the grounds of privilege lacks merit. The law is well-established: “[A] responding party may object to an interrogatory that seeks privileged information by clearly stating the objection and the particular privilege invoked. But the existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged. [Citations.] Interrogatories may be used to discover the existence of documents in the other party's possession. [Citation.] If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document.” (Best Products, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1190.)

Therefore, the Court OVERRULES the objections asserted in Aragon Escrow’s responses to SROG No. 40.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to SROG No. 40.

4)      SROG No. 41

SROG No. 41 requests, “Describe any bonuses, incentives, or additional compensation provided to employees, including the criteria for awarding such bonuses or incentives during Plaintiff's employment.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 6.)

Aragon Escrow stated in its response that: “The business was not making money during the period Plaintiff was employed, for the reasons already sated - businesses had shut down and there was not that much Escrow business during said period to keep the employees including Plaintiff, nor bonuses paid.” “Responding party objects to the over broadness of all employees because escrow agents are on a different pay plan, as opposed to Plaintiff who was a receptionist/secretary. Plaintiff at the time that she worked was during the time of the pandemic when all business practically shut down, worked less than a year and she was not promised any bonuses during the time that she worked.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 6.)

Plaintiff argues that the request is relevant to Plaintiff’s damages. (Pl.’s Separate Statement, at p. 6.)

The Court finds the request is relevant and falls within the scope of discoverable information. Employer’s policies and compensation structures could support Plaintiff’s legal theories, particularly her claims under the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Aragon Escrow’s overbreadth objection does not overcome the Court’s determination of relevance. While Aragon Escrow acknowledges that different pay plans exist, it failed to provide any information that applies at least to employees in comparable roles. A blanket objection, without a reasonable effort to provide a tailored response, is improper and unjustified.

The Court observes that although Aragon Escrow’s responses may provide some context, they do not fully answer the interrogatory, rendering them incomplete.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to SROG No. 41.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), provides: “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

As the Court has granted the Motion, it finds that mandatory sanctions apply in this case. Utilizing the lodestar approach, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $1,110.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $350.00 for three hours reasonably spent, plus a $60.00 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Joanna Delira’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, is GRANTED.

Defendant Aragon Escrow Solutions, Inc. is ordered to provide verified supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 34-35, and 40-41, Set Two, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Joanna Delira’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Aragon Escrow Solutions, Inc. and its counsel of record are ordered to pay $1,110.00, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff, within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.