Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC640707, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC640707    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jenny Greenwood’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions from Cross-Defendant Anita Rogers and Plaintiff British American Household Staffing Inc. are GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded against Anita Rogers, British American Household Staffing, Inc., and their counsel in an amount to be determined at the hearing.

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, subd. (a).) A propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the party believes the answers are incomplete, evasive, or the objections are without merit. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions may be made on the grounds that an answer is incomplete or evasive, or an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)

Defendant Jenny Greenwood (Defendant) moves to compel further responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions from Plaintiff British American Household Staffing, Inc. and Cross-Defendant Anita Rogers (Plaintiffs). Defendant argues that after Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary adjudication on November 18, 2022, Defendant prepared and served the discovery at issue on December 2, 2022. (Jensen Decl. ¶¶ 5–10.) Plaintiffs served responses on January 3, 2023, which consisted of nothing but boilerplate objections. (Jensen Decl. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiffs argue that the discovery at issue in these motions consist of 671 requests, out of 1,157 propounded by  Defendant on December 2, 2022, designed only to cause delay and harassment. (Opposition at p. 5.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant did not meet and confer in good faith prior to filing this motion. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.)

Further responses are warranted to the discovery at issue. The present motions were preceded by efforts to meet and confer, including a teleconference and an exchange of letters. (Angioni Decl. ¶¶, 7–8.) Although a large amount of discovery requests might in other circumstances warrant further efforts to narrow their scope, Plaintiffs’ unilaterally simplified the discovery dispute by supplying no responses to the discovery at issue save boilerplate objections, which they do not attempt to support in opposition to these motions. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220 [“Defendants here had the burden of showing facts from which the trial court might find that the interrogatories were interposed for improper purposes.”].) Nor do Plaintiffs present evidence “showing the quantum of work required” necessary to show that the discovery served is overly burdensome. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) Plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the potential discovery of trade secrets, or the duplicative nature of this discovery, are likewise unsupported.

Accordingly, the motions to compel further are GRANTED.

I.       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).)

Defendants seek $13,660.00 in sanctions, representing 38 hours of attorney work at $350 per hour plus $360 for six filing fees. (Jensen Decl. ¶ 35.) This amount is excessive, as it includes preliminary work meeting and conferring, “writing email letters and making phone calls in attempts to resolve these issues,” and further neglects the highly duplicative nature of the objections and discovery at issue in these motions. (Jensen Decl. ¶ 35.)

Sanctions are therefore awarded against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants and their counsel in an amount to be addressed at the hearing.