Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV06691, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06691    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Sylvia Santiago’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four, from Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is GRANTED as to Interrogatories No.152, 153, 162, 164, 166, and 181. The motion is otherwise DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

Defendant to provide notice.

I.       MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)  The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)

Plaintiff Sylvia Santiago moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 151–156, 158, 161–164, 166, and 176–183. These interrogatories asked Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Defendant) to “identify” various individuals, with “identify” meaning to state “the full name, address, telephone number, job title, department they worked in, and dates of employment of the individual or entity and the place of incorporation of the company, and the address of the company's principal place of business if applicable.” (Mohrsaz Decl. Exh. 1.) Interrogatory No. 183, the sole exception to this pattern, asked Defendant to state, for each person so identified, what information Defendant believes they have relating to Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant offered objections in response. (Separate Statement.)

Defendant in opposition claims to have served supplemental responses as of February 14, 2024, in keeping with the parties’ meet-and-confer correspondence preceding the present motion. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.)

Plaintiff in opposition contends that the responses remain insufficient for the following reasons:

·         Defendant failed to provide contact information for Interrogatories No. 152, 153, 155, 156, 164, 166, and 181, for which the individuals were identified as former employees of Defendant;

·         Defendant stated that it does not know of the individuals identified in Interrogatories No. 154, 161, 179, and 182, when evidence produced suggests they possess such knowledge;

·         Defendant stated in response to Interrogatories No. 162, 163, and 180 that the individuals could be contacted through the United Nurses Association of California, without providing contact information.

(Reply at pp. 3–4.) 

From the above, no further response is needed as to Interrogatories No. 151, 158, and 176–178. Moreover, although Plaintiff contends that Defendant ought to have information related to the individuals presented in Interrogatories No. 154, 161, 179 and 182, Plaintiff presents no evidence upon which this argument is based. No further response is needed as to Interrogatory No. 183, because although Plaintiff argues that Defendant is feigning ignorance of certain individuals as a means of evading discovery, no evidence is presented on this point. The motion is therefore DENIED as to Interrogatories No. 151, 154, 158, 161, 176–179, 182, and 183.

Additionally, no further response is required as to Interrogatories No. 155 and 156, as Defendant’s responses indicate that the individuals identified were never in its employ. (Supp. Semmer Decl. Exh. C.) Likewise, no further response is necessary for Interrogatories No. 163 and 180, as Defendant indicated that these were current employees who could be contacted through counsel, as provided in the parties’ prior meet-and-confer correspondence. (Ibid.; Mohrsaz Decl. Exh. 4.)

But further responses are warranted as to Interrogatories No. 152, 153, 162, 164, 166, and 181. Defendant indicated as to these responses that these were former employees, but did not provide contact information as required by the interrogatory. The motion is therefore GRANTED as to these requests.

II.    SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks $6,560.00 in sanctions, representing ten hours of attorney work at $650 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Mohrsaz Decl. ¶ 16.)

No sanctions are awarded, as Defendant opposed the motion with substantial justification. The parties reached an agreement as to the desired character of Defendant’s responses on December 26, 2023. (Mohrsaz Decl. Exh. 4.) Plaintiff followed up this agreement with a short follow up email on January 4, 2024, to which Defendant’s counsel did not respond before the motion was filed on January 11, 2024. (Mohrsaz Decl. ¶¶ 10–11.) Defendant should have responded, but a modest amount of additional follow-up could have obviated the need for the motion, as shown by the supplemental responses that Defendant provided more than a month before it filed its opposition.