Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 21STCV47314, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV47314, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47314 Hearing Date: March 22, 2024 Dept: 61

Plaintiff Sara Cisneros’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories – General and Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Form Interrogatories – Employment from Defendant BaronHR West, Inc. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,885.

Plaintiff to give 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.)

“A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Plaintiff Sara Cisneros (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories – General, and to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories – Employment, from Defendant BaronHR West, Inc. Plaintiff served the discovery at issue on August 24, 2023, and received responses on October 9, 2023, but no responses to Form Interrogatories – General. (Motion at p. 3.) Defendant’s responses to all special interrogatories and requests for production consisted of the language: “Investigation and discovery are continuing, and BARONHR WEST, INC. reserves the right to amend, modify, and/or supplement this response.” (Separate Statement.)

Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment are more diverse. Defendant responded to Form Interrogatories No. 200.1–200.5 with the same stock phrase as indicated above. (Separate Statement at pp. 1–6.) Defendant responded to Interrogatory No. 200.6, which sought Defendant’s position on whether Plaintiff and Defendant were in a business relationship other than an employment relationship, and to state the evidence supporting Defendant’s position, with objections and a statement that Defendant “has located no responsive documents.” (Separate Statement at pp. 6–7.) Defendant responded to Interrogatory No. 201.1 (which asked whether Plaintiff was involved in a termination, and to state supporting evidence) with objections and the statement that Defendant “is unaware of any responsive information at this time.” (Separate Statement at pp. 7–8.) Defendant responded only with objections based on vagueness, relevance, and proportionality to Interrogatories No. 201.2–201.7, 207.1, 207.2, 208.1, 208.2, 209.2, 211.1–211.3, 214.1, 215.1, 215.2, 216.1, and 217.1. (Separate Statement at pp. 9–33.)

Plaintiff’s requests for production are supported by good cause. They seek documents related to Plaintiff’s employment relationship, performance, termination, and complaints, which is at issue in this litigation. Defendant’s responses are not code-compliant, as they consist of mere assurances that discovery is continuing, or else objections that Defendant has not supported with any opposition materials to this motion. Defendant has also provided no responses to Form Interrogatories – General.

The motions are therefore GRANTED.

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 $455 in sanctions in connection with the motion to compel, representing one hour of attorney work and a $60 filing fee. (Hahn Decl. ¶¶ 7–10.) For each of the motions to compel further, Plaintiff seeks $850 in sanctions, representing two hours of attorney work at $395 per hour, plus three $60 filing fees. This represents a total sanctions request for all four motions of $2,885.00.

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,885.