Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV22405, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 16 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.

On November 27, 2023, Moving Defendant filed: (1) a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One (the “RFP Motion”); (2) a motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “FROG Motion”); and (3) a motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “SPROG Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).[1]

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met for all the Motions.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2031.310, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 234-35.) To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

Moving Defendant served the discovery requests at issue in the Motions on August 3, 2023. (Declaration of Smbat Mamyan (“Mamyan Decl.” ¶ 3.) Plaintiff provided responses on October 9, 2023. (Mamyan Decl. ¶ 5.) Moving Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter detailing Moving Defendant’s concerns with the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s responses on November 10, 2023. (Mamyan Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit C.) Moving Defendant’s counsel sent a follow-up email on November 16, 2023, and had not received a response when the Motions were filed. (See Mmyan Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Exhibit D.)

The Court finds that the RFP Motion fails to set forth facts that demonstrate good cause justifying the discovery of the documents sought by the RFPs. The Court therefore DENIES the RFP Motion.

Under CCP section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

If only a part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered; and if an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. (CCP § 2030.240, subds. (a)-(b).) The burden is on the party responding to discovery to justify his or her objections to such discovery. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

The Court agrees with Moving Defendant that Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses consist of sweeping objections and finds that Plaintiff has not justified her objections.

With respect to the SPROG Motion, Moving Defendant served over 57 SPROGs. Generally, a party may only propound to another party thirty-five (35) specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the action. (CCP § 2030.030, subd. (a).) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order, a party who attaches a supporting declaration for additional discovery under CCP section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

(1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

(2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

(3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

A party who propounds more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories shall attach a supporting declaration which substantially addresses why the number of questions is warranted under CCP section 2030.040. (See CCP § 2030.050.) The example declaration provided in CCP section 2030.050 provides that a party should “state each factor described in Section 2030.040 that is relied on, as well as the reasons why any factor relied on is applicable to the instant lawsuit.” (See id.) If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.040, subd. (b).)

The Court observes that Moving Defendant’s SPROGs include a CCP section 2030.050 declaration that accounts for the additional requests. Plaintiff’s SPROG responses do not cite to CCP section 2030.030; nor has Plaintiff sought a protective order. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Moving Defendant’s CCP section 2030.050 declaration is sufficient to justify the additional special interrogatories.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the SPROG and FROG Motions. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental, code-compliant responses within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving Defendant requests $5,660 in monetary sanctions in connection with each Motion. (See Mamyan Decl. ¶ 11.) This amount represents: (1) eight hours preparing the meet and confer letter and drafting the moving papers at a rate of $400 per hour; (2) an anticipated 2 hours to review the opposition papers and draft reply papers; and (3) a $60 filing fee. (Id.)

The Court declines to issue sanctions in connection with the RFP Motion. With respect to the SPROG and FROG Motion, the Court grants Moving Defendant reasonable monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,520, which represents six hours preparing the FROG and SPROG Motions collectively and responding to opposition papers at a rate of $400 per hour, and a $60 filing fee for each Motion. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Plaintiff and counsel are responsible for paying this amount within 20 days of the date of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff placed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One on calendar. The Court’s files do not include a record of this motion being filed or served.