Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC640707, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC640707    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Jenny Greenwood’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Plaintiffs British American Household Staffing, Inc., and British American Household Staffing CA, Inc., is GRANTED. Sanctions are DENIED.

Defendants to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION 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).)

Defendant Jenny Greenwood (Defendant) seeks further responses to Special Interrogatories from the two Plaintiffs called British American Household Staffing, Inc., one based in New York (BAHS NY) and the other in California (BAHS CA).

The interrogatories at issue are divided into three categories:

1.      Those seeking the identification of facts supporting one of Plaintiffs’ contentions or allegations. For BAHS NY, these are Interrogatories No. 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 70, 74, 78, 82, 86, 90, 94, 98, 102, 106, 110, 114, 118, 122, 126, 130, 134, 138, 142, 146, 154, 158, 162, 166, 170, 174, 178, 182, 186, and 190. For BAHS CA, these are Special Interrogatories No. 3, 47, 51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 71, 75, 79, 83, 87, 91, 95, 99, 103, 107, 111, 115, 119, 123, 127, 131, 135, 139, 143, 147, 151, 155, 159, 163, 167, 171, 175, 179, 183, 187, 195, 199, 203, 207, 211, 215, 219, 223, 227, and 231.

2.      Those seeking the identification of witnesses with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ contentions or allegations. For BAHS NY, these are Interrogatories No. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 45, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 156, 160, 164, 168, 172, 176, 184, 188, and 192. For BAHS CA, these are Interrogatories No. 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105, 109, 113, 117, 121, 125, 129, 133, 137, 141, 145, 149, 153, 157, 161, 165, 169, 173, 177, 181, 185, 189, 197, 201, 205, 209, 213, 217, 225, 229, and 233.

3.      Those seeking the identification of documents supporting Plaintiffs’ contentions or allegations. For BAHS NY, these are 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39, 43, 47, 51, 55, 59, 63, 67, 71, 75, 79, 83, 95, 99, 103, 107, 111, 115, 119, 123, 127, 135, 159, 163, 167, 171, 175, 179, 183, 187, and 191. For BAHS CA, these are 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 124, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 156, 160, 164, 168, 176, 200, 204, 208, 212, 216, 220, 224, 228, and 232.

The interrogatories here are susceptible to such categorization because Plaintiffs have provided only stock responses, varying with respect to one another only by whether the interrogatory asks for facts, witnesses, or evidence. Plaintiffs’ responses to those interrogatories that ask for facts consists of a lengthy, block recitation of the allegations in its complaint. Asked to identify witnesses with relevant knowledge, Plaintiffs have responded that they could name no witnesses save their own principal, Anita Rogers, “without some degree of speculation.” (Separate Statement at pp. 23–24.) And asked to identify documents relevant to certain contentions, Plaintiffs have identified “all documents produced by the parties in this action.” (Separate Statement at p. 59.)

Plaintiffs in opposition contend that this motion is improper because Defendant did not meet and confer in good faith. Yet the parties exchanged correspondence regarding the discovery at issue before the motion was brought. Plaintiffs still contend that Defendant did not respond to their invitation to identify the particular interrogatory responses that were insufficient, and rather objected to Plaintiffs’ responses en masse. (Opposition at pp. 10–11.) This is, in the first instance, incorrect. (Jensen Decl. Exh. 14.) It is also without consequence to the disposition of this motion.  Defendant identified the copy-pasted stock responses that she believed were non-compliant, and Plaintiffs, as the entities that drafted those stock responses and determined which interrogatories they would apply to, were amply on notice of which interrogatories were numerically at issue by mere reference to the responses Defendant objected to.

Plaintiffs argue that the interrogatories are too numerous. Yet these same interrogatories were the subject of a prior motion to compel further, and Plaintiffs’ arguments are no better supported in the present instance than the prior. The interrogatories at issue here are reasonably targeted to the wide-ranging allegations of misconduct contained in Plaintiffs’ complaint. For example, Plaintiffs allege, among many other things, that Defendant used her personal email account to conduct company business, that she deleted client and candidate information from Plaintiffs’ system, and that she began siphoning opportunities from Plaintiffs while still employed by them. These allegations have therefore occasioned separate interrogatories seeking facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each, and have been directed separately to both Plaintiffs.  (See Separate Statement at pp. 6–7,19–20, 27–28, 35, 47,  55,)  The volume of discovery is thus explicable by the scope of Plaintiffs’ allegations.

Plaintiffs’ responses to this discovery are non-compliant. Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subd. (a).). Plaintiffs’ response to all interrogatories seeking the facts supporting its allegations consisted of a stock recitation of the allegations constituting their entire case, distinguishable from their Complaint solely by the absence of numerical organization and an even broader level of generality. These responses are not straightforwardly directed to any given interrogatory nor complete.

Plaintiffs’ other responses are non-compliant. Plaintiffs have no reasonable basis for citing the entire corpus of documentary discovery in this case as responsive to any given interrogatory at issue here. Nor can they avoid identifying witnesses with relevant knowledge by reference to the philosophical proposition that no human being can truly know the mind of another. Plaintiffs have invoked the machinery of the court for the vindication of their claims, and may not balk when asked in the ordinary course of discovery to supply the evidence upon which they rely.

The motion is therefore GRANTED. Sanctions are DENIED.