Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 22STCV06953, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV06953, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06953 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 Dept: 61

Plaintiff Eliseo Parra’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission from Defendant Vitello’s Restaurant, LLC. are GRANTED in their entirety.

Sanctions are DENIED.

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 Eliseo Parra (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Vitello’s Restaurant, LLC to Special Interrogatories No. 52, 73, 74, 90, 92–94, 96, 98, 102, 106, and 107; Request for Production No. 69; Form Interrogatories – Employment No. 211.1 and 217.1, and Requests for Admission No. 29 and 36.

The special interrogatories were as follows. Interrogatories No. 52 and 94 sought information related to Defendant’s contacts with Plaintiff in May 2020 or after, to which Defendant responded by offering objections and stating that it “attempted to contact Plaintiff numerous times” using Plaintiff’s contact information. (Separate Statement at pp. 2, 11.) Interrogatories No. 73 and 74 asked Defendant to identify its directors, managers, and officers, and state their relationships to co-defendants, to which Defendant offered objections. (Separate Statement at pp. 6–7.) Interrogatories No. 90, 92, and 93 asked Defendant to identify (i.e. provide the name and contact information) for given employees, to which Defendant provided names and hiring and firing dates. (Separate Statement at pp. 7–9.) Interrogatory No. 96 sought the job titles for each of Defendant’s employees as of January 2020, to which Defendant responded with 10 job titles. (Separate Statement at p. 12.) Interrogatories No. 98, 102, and 106 sought the name, age, and job title for each employee of Defendant’s as of January 2020, 2021, and 2022, to which Defendant responded by reference to a response to Interrogatory No. 28, which purportedly contained all names of prior employees for the past five years. (Separate Statement at pp. 13–16.) Finally, Interrogatory No. 107 asked the date that Defendant applied for any COVID relief, to which Defendant offered objections. (Separate Statement at pp. 16–17.)

A further response is required as to Interrogatories No. 52 and 94, which concerned Defendant’s post-termination contacts with Plaintiff. Defendant argues in opposition that Vitello’s Restaurant “is a small company” that tried “to track down former employees,” and that it sent out a notice of a meeting to its employees to discuss pandemic operations. (Separate Statement at pp. 1–2.) Defendant does not explain why this information was not contained in the response to the interrogatories.

Further responses are also required as to Interrogatories No. 73 and 74. These interrogatories concerned Defendant’s officers and directors and their relationship with Defendant and its co-defendant corporation Although Defendant contends that it’s co-defendant corporation has not been an active corporation since February 2019, Plaintiff presents documents indicating that Vitello’s Inc. later applied for and received a COVID relief loan in 2020. (Supp. Kayyali Decl. Exh. 10.) Indeed, a California Business Search with the Secretary of State indicates that Vitello’s Inc., a California corporation whose agent for service is its present counsel, is “active.” A further response is required, and Defendant’s objections based on relevance are overruled.

Further responses are also required as to Interrogatories No. 90, 92, and 93, which concerned requests for contact information for specified employees. Defendant provides no explanation for failing to provide the contact information requested except that it is a “small company” and is “trying to track down former employees.” (Separate Statement at pp. 7–9.) If information is not reasonably with Defendant’s possession, the Discovery Act provides a means to convey this information. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (c).) The same rationale requires a further response to Interrogatory No. 94, as Defendant’s reason for failing to respond is the same. (Separate Statement at p. 10.)

A further response is also required to Interrogatories No. 96, 98, 102, and 106, which sought employee hiring and demographic information. Defendant contends that all responsive information was provided in a spreadsheet responsive to Interrogatory No. 28. However, Plaintiff contends that the response to Interrogatory No. 28 contains only employee names, “status,” and hiring date. Although Defendant attached an additional spreadsheet with additional information in meet-and-confer correspondence, Defendant did not, as Plaintiff requested, offer its explanations and additional information by a verified formal response. (Motion Exh. 8.) A further verified response is required. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250.)

And a further response is required as to Interrogatory No. 107. This interrogatory sought information related to Defendant’s COVID relief applications. This interrogatory seeks relevant information, as Defendant’s application for COVID relief during this time may provide corroborating payroll and employee information.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to the Special Interrogatories in their entirety.

A further response is also required as to Request for Production No. 69, which seeks documents related to Defendant’s requests for COVID aid. (Separate Statement.) As noted with respect to Interrogatory No. 107, such information bears on Defendant’s payroll and employee records during the relevant period of the present suit. The motion is GRANTED as to Request No. 69.

The motion is also properly granted as to the Form Interrogatories. Form Interrogatory No. 211.1 asked for the identification of each type of “benefit” the employee would have been entitled to from the date of the adverse employment action, had the action not happened. (Separate Statement at p. 2.) Defendant responded with an objection that the question was argumentative, because it assumed an adverse employment action had taken place. (Ibid.) But Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff at one point stopped coming into work, and appears to infer that he was laid off with the advent of the COVID pandemic. (Separate Statement at pp. 4–5.) Defendant in opposition argues that it provided the requested information in meet-and-confer correspondence (Separate Statement at pp. 1–2), but once again did not put the information a verified interrogatory response, and in any event this informal information omits the amounts called for by the interrogatory. (Separate Statement at pp. 1–2.)

Form Interrogatory No. 217.1 sought facts and evidence supporting all responses to requests for admission other than an admission, and Defendant provided an omnibus response consisting solely of a broad statement of facts, without supporting witnesses or documents. (Separate Statement at pp. 3–7.) Plaintiff identifies several admissions that received no treatment in Defendant’s response, and Defendant in opposition attempts to supply the missing factual content in its oppositional separate statement, effectively confirming that no such facts were given. (Ibid.) Thus the motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories.

Finally, a further response is required to Requests for Admission No. 29 and 36. Request No. 29 sought an admission that Defendant kept no corporate minutes, to which Defendant only objected. (Separate Statement at pp. 1–2.) Defendant repeats that Vitello’s Inc. is not an active corporation, but as explained above, this is no barrier to discovery concerning Defendant’s corporate identity. (Ibid.) Request No. 36 sought an admission that Defendant replaced the employees it terminated in May 2020 with younger employees, to which Defendant objected. (Separate Statement at p. 3.) Defendant in opposition once more tries to claim its informal meet and confer correspondence as a substitute for an actual verified response. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.240.)

The motions are therefore GRANTED in their entirety. Sanctions are DENIED.