Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV20161, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20161    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 61

If supplemental responses have been provided to plaintiff prior to the hearing on the Plaintiff Yoshitaka Takeuchi’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Defendant Select 7, LLC, the motions are DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

Plaintiff to give notice.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER — INTERROGATORIES

“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 Yoshitaka Takeuchi (Plaintiff) seeks further responses to Special Interrogatories No. 1–6, and Requests for Production No. 1–9, 11, 13, and 14. These interrogatories sought contact and immigration information for all of Defendant Select 7 LLC’s employees, descriptions of their job positions, and identifications of all of Defendant’s corporate officers, CPAs, and affiliate companies. (Separate Statement.) The requests for production sought employee personnel files, contracts, immigration petitions, and documents related to overtime and meal and rest breaks. (Separate Statement.) Defendant responded to each interrogatory with objections. (Ibid.)

Defendant in opposition argues that the motions are moot. Specifically, Defendant has taken Plaintiff’s deposition, and as of January 30, 2022, has agreed to provide supplemental responses to both sets of discovery at issue in these motions, prior to the hearing thereon. (Rivera Decl. ¶ 13, Exh. H.) Plaintiff has filed no reply to this opposition.

If supplemental responses are provided by the hearing on these motions, the motions shall be DENIED.