Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02609, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02609    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO GENERAL AND EMPLOYMENT LAW FORM INTERROGATORY

Motion filed: 5/5/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC to provide supplemental, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s first set of General Form Interrogatory, Nos.  3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, and 13.2; and Plaintiff’s first set of Employment Law Form Interrogatories, Nos. 200.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 208.1, 208.2, 209.2, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, and 215.2.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from alleged childhood sexual assault and abuse.

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants Magic Mountain, LLC (“Magic Mountain”), Jose Arriaga (“Arriaga”), and Does 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges 12 causes of action: (1) Sexual Battery/Abuse of a Minor (against Arriaga and Does 31 through 50); (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Arriaga and Does 31 through 50); (3) Sexual Harassment (Civ. Code §§ 51.9 and 52) (against Arriaga and Does 31 through 50); (4) Negligent Hiring, Supervision & Retention of an Unfit Employee (against Magic Mountain and Does 1 through 50); (5) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate (against Magic Mountain and Does 1 through 50); (6) Negligent Supervision of a Minor (against Magic Mountain and Does 1 through 30); (7) Negligence (against all Defendants); (8) Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) (against Magic Mountain and Does 1 through 30); (9) Retaliation (Lab. Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5) (against Magic Mountain); (10) Sexual harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(k)) (against all Defendants); (11) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(a)) (against Magic Mountain); and (12) Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(k)) (against Magic Mountain). Subsequently, on March 27, 2024, Magic Mountain filed its Answer to the Complaint; and on June 25, 2024, the Clerk entered Default against Arriaga.

On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses (the “Motion”). On May 29, 2025, Defendant Magic Mountain filed its Opposition, and Plaintiff submitted a Reply on June 4, 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, Plaintiff’s counsel, Afnan Shukry (“Shukry”), states that Defendant Magic Mountain served its unverified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Employment Law Form Interrogatories (“ELFROG”) on March 7, 2025 (Shukry Decl., Ex. “C”), followed by a verification served on March 21, 2025 (id., ¶ 4.).

The service of verification triggered the 45-day period and established that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel further responses was May 5, 2025.

Therefore, the Court finds the Motion is timely, as it was filed on May 5, 2025, meeting 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’s counsel asserts that the meet and confer requirements were satisfied through correspondence sent on February 10, 2025, which detailed deficiencies in Magic Mountain’s initial responses. (Shukry Decl. ¶ 2.)

In Opposition, Magic Mountain contends that Plaintiff’s meet and confer addressed only the initial responses but failed to engage with the supplemental responses, served on March 7, 2025. (Opp’n. at p. 8.)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were insufficient. The statute requires a “good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, underlines added.) It is evident that the Motion is directed at all operative responses provided by Magic Mountain, including its supplemental responses served on March 7, 2025. (Shukry Decl. Ex. “C.”) By omitting a meaningful meet and confer effort regarding the supplemental responses, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the statutory requirements to make a good faith attempt to informally resolve all issues raised in the Motion.

However, the Court also notes that Magic Mountain’s supplemental responses largely reiterated prior objections or offered minimal substantive responses, which tends to support Plaintiff’s claim of futility for reengaging the meet and confer. Moreover, Plaintiff’s moving papers, including the Separate Statement, adequately address Magic Mountain’s supplemental responses.

Accordingly, the Court, in exercising its discretion, proceeds with consideration of the merits of the Motion.

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 FROG

“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 Defendant Magic Mountain has served code-compliant responses, and whether its objections have satisfied the burden to show cause when considered in light of the arguments presented by Plaintiff.

1)      Insurance Coverage – FROG Nos. 4.1, 4.2, and ELFROG Nos. 214.1, 214.2

FROG No. 4.1: “At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; (d) the policy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance company; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.” (Pl.’s Separate Statement (“SS”), at p. 3.)

FROG No. 4.2: “Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 4.)

FROG No. 214.1: “At the time of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;

(d) the policy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between

you and the insurance company; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. (Pl.’s SS, at p. 26.)

ELFROG No. 214.2: “Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION? If so, specify the statute.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 27.)

Magic Mountain objects to the above-listed interrogatories on the grounds of relevance and confidentiality. (Pl.’s SS at pp. 3, 4, 26, 27.) As to FROG Nos. 4.1 and 4.2, Magic Mountain  further states that it “will produce the documents upon a Stipulated Protective Order to protect confidential trade-secret and/or business documents”. (Id. at pp. 3, 4.)

With respect to ELFROG Nos. 214.1 and 214.2, Magic Mountain provides a substantive response asserting that “after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party has no responsive documents because there was no identified adverse employment action related to Plaintiff’s claims in this case.” (Pl.’s SS at pp. 26, 27.)

The Court finds Magic Mountain’s objections – based on irrelevance and confidentiality – to be without merit. Discovery of insurance policies are clearly permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210, which provides, in pertinent part:

“A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment …. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement’s coverage of the claim involved in the action[.]”

(Code Civ. Proc., §2017.210.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to interrogatory responses that encompass insurance coverage, regardless of confidentiality concerns, which may be appropriately addressed through the entry of a protective order.

Moreover, Magic Mountain’s assertion that there were “no identified adverse employment actions” does not preclude its obligation to respond to ELFROG Nos. 214.1 and 214.2. Plaintiff’s definition of “TERMINATION” in the interrogatories clarifies that it means “the actual or constructive termination of employment and includes a discharge, firing, layoff, resignation, or completion of the term of the employment agreement” (See Pl.’s SS, at p. 1.)

ELFROG Nos. 214.1 and 214.2 are specifically tied to the “damages, claims, or actions” in the pleadings, and therefore encompass Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation (e.g., termination or constructive discharge after reporting abuse) and harassment/discrimination (e.g., failure to prevent a hostile environment). Magic Mountain’s narrow interpretation of “termination” misstates the breadth of discovery permissible under the interrogatories as framed.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Magic Mountain’s objections asserted to the above-listed interrogatories.

            Notably, the Court emphasizes that Magic Mountain has expressed its willingness to produce information pursuant to a stipulated protective order. (Pl.’s SS, at pp. 3-4.) The Court finds such an approach may serve to adequately balance Magic Mountain’s confidentiality concerns with Plaintiff’s discovery rights. Plaintiff is expected to engage in good faith meet and confer regarding the proposed protective orders in compliance with the discovery statutes.

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to FROG Nos. 4.1, 4.2, and ELFROG Nos. 214.1 and 214.2, ordering Magic Mountain to provide further code-compliant responses. Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Magic Mountain concerning entry of a stipulated protective order.

2)      Witness Statements – FROG Nos. 12.2, ELFROG Nos. 215.1, 215.2

FROG No. 12.2: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview.” (Pl.’s SS, at pp. 4-5.)

ELFROG No. 215.1: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 28.)

ELFROG No. 215.2: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 29.)

            Magic Mountain asserts attorney-client privilege and work product protection. (Pl.’s SS at pp. 28-29.) Magic Mountain further states that it does not have any responsive documents as to ELFROG Nos. 215.1 and 215.2. (Def.’s SS, at pp. 33-34.)

            As to FROG No. 12.2, Magic Mountain stated that “Responding Party’s human resources personnel interviewed Jose Arriaga, and referred Plaintiff’s claims to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s County for investigation.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 5.)

            While Magic Mountain identifies Arriaga and Los Angeles Sheriff involved in the investigation, its response remains incomplete because it fails to provide detailed contact information as requested by the interrogatories, such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers.

            The Court finds that Magic Mountain’s objections based on privilege and work product doctrine are boilerplate nature and unsupported, and thus are overruled. (See Masimo Corp v. The Vanderpool L. Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 902, 905.)

            The Court further notes that the privilege log provided by Magic Mountain is insufficient under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.240.

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to FROG No. 12.2. and ELFROG Nos. 215.1 and 215.2, ordering Magic Mountain to provide complete responses.

3)      Relevant Documents – FROG Nos. 12.4, 12.5, and 12.6.

FROG No. 12.4: “Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff’s injuries? If so, state: (a) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape; (b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped; (c) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs, films, or videotapes; and (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 7.)

FROG No. 12.5: “Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model); (b) the subject matter; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has it.” (Pl.’s SS, at pp. 8-9.)

FROG No. 12.6: “Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 10)

            Magic Mountain objects to these interrogatories on the basis of attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. However, as previously noted, these objections are disfavored where they are asserted in a boilerplate format and without supporting facts. Unsupported and generic objections fail to preserve the asserted privilege and are overruled.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires each response to be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Additionally, the responding party is obligated to make reasonable inquiry if it does not have personal knowledge to respond fully. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

            Here, the interrogatories at issue ask whether Magic Mountain or anyone acting on its behalf knows of specific materials (FROG Nos. 12.4, 12.5) or if reports were made (FROG No. 12.6), not merely whether it possesses them. The scope of knowledge clearly includes information that may be acquired through reasonable inquiry. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)          

Applying the standard, the Court finds Magic Mountain’s responses are incomplete.

Its response to FROG No. 12.4 acknowledges the existence of footage from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department but fails to clearly identify or provides any details or a clear statement about other materials. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of other known materials nor provides specific identifying details, rendering the response incomplete.

Similarly, Magic Mountain’s response to FROG No. 12.6 is incomplete, as it identifies some reports but lacks details required by the interrogatory (e.g., names, dates, custodians). Magic Mountain’s attempt to direct Plaintiff to obtain law enforcement reports from third-party sources (i.e., American Legal Services) does not discharge its obligation to disclose what it already knows or possesses.

As to FROG No. 12.5, Magic Mountain’s response is facially complete, denying knowledge of any diagrams or models. However, the response is qualified by invalid boilerplate objections that obscure the clarity and completeness of the substantive denial.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to FROG No. 12.4, 12.5, 12.6.

4)      Licensing Information – FROG No. 3.7

FROG No. 3.7: “Within the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration: (a) identify the license or registration; (b) state the name of the public entity; and (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration.” (Pl.’s SS, at p.2.)

            Magic Mountain responded by stating: “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry there is no requirement by any governmental entity that Magic Mountain LLC obtain a general license in order to operate an amusement park. The Park does have numerous individual licenses issued by various agencies for its specific operations, and the subject attraction was permitted by the State of California.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 2.)

            The Court finds Magic Mountain’s response not code-compliant.

Licensing information is relevant to Plaintiff’s negligence-based claims, as it may tend to show compliance, or lack thereof, with regulatory standards governing the operation of an amusement park, particularly where minors are employed.

While Magic Mountain denies the need for a general license, its vague reference to “numerous individual licenses” issued by “various agencies” fails to meet the specificity required by the interrogatory. A code-compliant response must identify the issuing agencies, license types, license numbers, or otherwise affirmatively state after reasonable inquiry that such information is not available.

Moreover, Magic Mountain has asserted no objections to this interrogatory, and thus has waived any grounds to resist providing a complete response. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 216-217.)

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to FROG No. 3.7.

5)      Policies and Procedures – ELFROG Nos. 200.4, 207.1

ELFROG No. 200.4: “Was any part of the parties’ EMPLOYMENT relationship governed in whole or in part by any written rules, guidelines, policies, or procedures established by the EMPLOYER? If so, for each DOCUMENT containing the written rules, guidelines, policies, or procedures: (a) state the date and title of the DOCUMENT and a general description of its contents; (b) state the manner in which the DOCUMENT was communicated to employees; and (c) state the manner, if any, in which employees acknowledged either receipt of the DOCUMENT or knowledge of its contents.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 13.)

ELFROG No. 207.1: “Were there any internal written policies or regulations of the EMPLOYER that apply to the making of a complaint of the type that is the subject matter of this lawsuit? If so: (a) state the title and date of each DOCUMENT containing the policies or regulations and a general description of the DOCUMENT’S contents; (b) state the manner in which the DOCUMENT was communicated to EMPLOYEES; (c) state the manner, if any, in which EMPLOYEES acknowledged receipt of the DOCUMENT or knowledge of its contents, or both; (d) state, if you contend that the EMPLOYEE failed to use any available internal complaint procedures, all facts that support that contention; and (e) state, if you contend that the EMPLOYEE’S failure to use internal complaint procedures was excused, all facts why the “EMPLOYEE’S use of the procedures was excused.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 18.)

Magic Mountain objects on the grounds that the requests call for legal conclusions, are premature, and seek expert opinions. (Pl.’s SS, at pp. 13, 18.) Magic Mountain further states “unknown at this time” due to Plaintiff’s failure to identify the complaint. (Id. at p. 18.)

The Court finds Magic Mountain’s objections to be improper and unsupported. First, objections that the interrogatories call for legal conclusions or expert opinions are misplaced, as the requests seek factual information regarding employment policies and procedures – matters that are squarely within the responding party’s knowledge and duty to disclose in discovery.

Second, the “premature” objection lacks merit, as a party is obligated to provide responses based on its present knowledge, even if discovery is ongoing.

Moreover, a response stating that the information is “unknown at this time” is evasive where, as here, the responding party has access to internal records and personnel familiar with the company’s employment policies and procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

For ELFROG No. 200.4, Magic Mountain’s response references “work permit” documents, which does not adequately address broader scope of employment policies. This interrogatory is relevant to Plaintiff’s negligent supervision, hiring, and retaliation claim, and thus requires a complete description of the applicable policies in place during the relevant time period.

As to ELFROG No. 207.1, Magic Mountain’s assertion of “unknown” in response is insufficient. It is reasonable to presume that an employer of Magic Mountain’s scale would have a defined procedure for handling complaints, and the interrogatory directly seeks such factual information. Magic Mountain is required to provide the information reasonably available to it after a diligent search and inquiry.

As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to ELFROG Nos. 200.4 and 207.1.

6)      Internal Complaint – ELFROG Nos. 207.2, 208.1, and 208.2

ELFROG No. 207.2: “Did the EMPLOYEE complain to the EMPLOYER about any of the unlawful conduct alleged in the PLEADINGS? ….” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 19.)

ELFROG No. 208.1: “Did the EMPLOYEE file a claim, complaint, or charge with any governmental agency that involved any of the material allegations made in the PLEADINGS? ….” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 21.)

ELFROG No. 208.2: “Did the EMPLOYER respond to any claim, complaint, or charge identified in Interrogatory 208.1? ….”) (Pl.’s SS, at p. 23.)

Magic Mountain objects to ELFROG No. 207.2 on the grounds that it calls for legal conclusions, is premature, seeks expert opinions, and requests information known to Plaintiff. In its response, Magic Mountain identifies a complaint made by Plaintiff on August 2, 2022, but asserts that Plaintiff failed to further details. (Pl.’s SS, at p. 20.) It asserts identical objections to ELFROG Nos. 208.1 and 208.2, which concern administrative complaints or investigations.

The Court finds these objections to be boilerplate and without merit. The information is critical to Plaintiffs’ retaliation and negligence claims. Magic Mountain’s claim that Plaintiff knows the information is not a valid basis to withhold responses.

The Court further finds Magic Mountain’s responses to ELFROG Nos. 208.1 and 208.2 – claiming Plaintiff has not provided details in her discovery responses – are evasive. The statute obligates a responding party to provide information reasonably available through its own records, not rely on Plaintiff’s discovery responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) If Magic Mountain is aware of any agency complaints, investigations, or related proceedings, such facts must be disclosed.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to ELFROG Nos. 207.2, 208.1, and 208.2.

7)      Site Inspection and Surveillance – FROG Nos. 12.7, 13.1, 13.2

FROG No. 12.7: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210– 2034.310); and (b) the date of the inspection.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 10.)

FROG No. 13.1: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF conducted surveillance of any individual involved in the INCIDENT or any party to this action? If so, for each surveillance state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual or party; (b) the time, date, and place of the surveillance; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who conducted the surveillance; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of any surveillance photograph, film, or videotape.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 11.)

FROG No. 13.2: “Has a written report been prepared on the surveillance? If so, for each written report state: (a) the title; (b) the date; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who prepared the report; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 12.)

Magic Mountain asserts boilerplate objections based on attorney-client privilege and the work products doctrine, but fails to provide any specific factual support to substantiate these claims. As such, the objections are overruled.

As to FROG Nos. 13.1 and 13.2, Magic Mountain responds “not applicable,” without providing a clear and straightforward answer confirming or denying whether surveillance was conducted. This response is evasive and fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, which requires a response to be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

Likewise, Magic Mountain’s response to FROG No. 12.7 is noncompliant for the same reasons—it neither confirms nor denies the existence of written statements or notes made during or following any investigation, nor identifies the authors, recipients, or dates.

These interrogatories are relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations of workplace misconduct, harassment, and retaliation, and the responding party is required to answer them with specificity or state clearly that no responsive information exists following a reasonable inquiry. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to FROG Nos. 12.7, 13.1, and 13.2.

8)      Plaintiff’s Replacement – ELFROG Nos. 201.5, 201.6

ELFROG No. 201.5: “Was any PERSON hired to replace the EMPLOYEE after the EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION or demotion? If so, state the PERSON’S name, job title, qualifications, ADDRESS and telephone number, and the date the PERSON was hired.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 15.)

ELFROG No. 201.6: “Has any PERSON performed any of the EMPLOYEE’S former job duties after the EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION or demotion? If so: (a) state the PERSON’S name, job title, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) identify the duties; and (c) state the date on which the PERSON started to perform the duties.” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 16.)

Magic Mountain objects on the grounds of irrelevance, third-party privacy, premature and that the interrogatories call for expert opinions. (Pl.’s SS, at pp. 15-16.)

In its substantive responses, Magic Mountain states “after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party has no responsive documents because there was no identified adverse employment action related to Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not terminated, but rather she decided not to return to work or provide a valid work permit. Plaintiff was notified that she had a yes rehire status and her condition to rehire would be to provide a valid work permit.” (Pl.’s SS, at pp. 15-16.)

The Court finds that the identity of Plaintiff’s replacement is relevant and discoverable, as such an individual may possess information concerning Magic Mountain’s employment practices and the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s departure. Any potential privacy concerns are minimal and are outweighed by Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in identifying potential witness with knowledge relevant to the claims at issue.

Additionally, Magic Mountain’s assertion that Plaintiff was not terminated overlooks the interrogatory’s broad definition of “termination,” which includes resignation. Its failing to identify any replacement or person performing Plaintiff’s duties is noncompliant and incomplete response.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to ELFROG Nos. 201.5, and 201.6.

9)      Other Lawsuits – ELFROG No. 209.2

ELFROG No. 209.2: “Except for this action, in the past 10 years has any employee filed a civil action against the EMPLOYER regarding his or her employment? ….” (Pl.’s SS, at p. 24.)

Magic Mountain objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and protected by settlement and mediation privilege. (Pl.’s SS, at p. 25.) It also claims that the information is equally available to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) It denies that there have been prior similar civil actions. (Ibid.)

The Court finds Magic Mountain’s response to be noncompliant and incomplete. The response addresses only “similar” claims, which narrows the scope of the interrogatory impermissibly. The interrogatory requests all employment-related civil actions, not merely those that Magic Mountain subjectively deems similar.

Magic Mountain’s reliance on “information and belief” is inadequate absent a showing of a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.

Its objections lack specificity or supporting evidence. Boilerplate objections are therefore invalid.

The settlement/mediation privilege is inapplicable to the mere existence of prior lawsuits or to general information about the claims asserted. Only the substance of settlement communications or terms may be protected. (See Evid. Code, §§ 1119, 1152.)

Finally, the Court finds the 10-year scope is not unreasonable given the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, and Magic Mountain has provided no showing of undue burden to justify narrowing the time frame.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to ELFROG No. 209.2.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to General Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Employment Law Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC is ordered to produce supplemental, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s first set of General Form Interrogatory, Nos.  3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, and 13.2, and Plaintiff’s first set of Employment Law Form Interrogatories, Nos. 200.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 208.1, 208.2, 209.2, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, and 215.2, within 30 days.

Plaintiff Jane Doe and Defendant Magic Mountain are ordered to engage in further meet and confer regarding the potential entry of a stipulated protective order.

Moving party to give notice.