Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 19STCV03037, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV03037    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 68

Billie Sarran v. Bay City Surgery Center, et al., Case No. 19STCV03037

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant Medhi Tahsini

Responding Parties:    Plaintiff Billie Sarran

It appears that there is no remaining controversy to be addressed by the Court.  But moving party appears to also have gone silent, failing to confirm to Plaintiff that the matter is resolved.  Plaintiff has stated in the Opposition that supplemental answers were served and moving party had not responded indicating that the matter is no longer in dispute.

BACKGROUND

This action was filed on January 29, 2019. Plaintiff sued Defendants for 1) Gender-based/Sex Discrimination; 2) Sexual Harassment; 3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment; 4) Failure to Correct and Remedy Discrimination and Harassment; 5) Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment; 6) Wrongful Termination; 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Medhi Tahsini (Defendant) was a medical provider at BCSC, where Plaintiff worked as a Medical Assistant, and that Defendant sexually harassed Plaintiff while she worked there. (Opposition at p. 3.)

On August 5, 2022, Defendant propounded upon Plaintiff a set of Special Interrogatories, which included numbers 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89, and 90, which are the interrogatories at issue here. Interrogatory 76 involved identifying medical providers that Plaintiff had gone to in the 7 years prior to the incident, but the rest involved questions of abuse and emotional hardship from Plaintiff’s childhood. (Imani Decl., ¶ 10; Ex. G.) Plaintiff initially objected to the questions on the basis that they were irrelevant and invasive to her privacy, but after a few months of back and forth with Defendant, served supplemental answers, with objection, on December 23, 2022. (Opposition at p. 4.) As of January 19, 2023, Plaintiff has not received confirmation from Defendant that he has received her supplemental answers. (Opposition at p. 4.)

Defendant filed this motion to compel further responses and request for sanctions on October 28, 2022. Plaintiff purports to have served her supplemental answers on Defendant on December 23, 2022, and again on December 27, 2022. Plaintiff stated in her opposition on January 19, 2023, that she has not gotten confirmation that Defendant received the supplemental answers. No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Motions to Compel Further Responses

            The CCP entitles parties to discovery “regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action…if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220.)

            Here, the Court finds that the supplemental answers that Plaintiff served on Defendant at the end of December 2022 were sufficient to answer the discovery requests and address the concerns of Defendant’s motion, especially given that the interrogatories at issue were not particularly relevant to the current action.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies as moot Defendant’s motion to compel further responses.

II.        Sanctions

            Defendant has requested that sanctions be awarded against Plaintiff.

Where responses to interrogatories are “inadequate and evasive” the court may impose monetary or terminating sanctions for failure to comply with discovery statutes. (Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1097.)

Here, Plaintiff has successfully opposed the motion, which was rendered moot by virtue of the supplemental discovery requests which Plaintiff served on Defendant.

Accordingly, no sanctions will be awarded.

            Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is denied as moot, and no sanctions are awarded.