Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

ANNETTE BREWER,

Plaintiff;  

vs. 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. Case No.: 21STCV46452

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to form interrogatories is DENIED. Sanctions are denied.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for violations of the California Family Rights Act, violations of the Labor Code, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that she is a former employee of Defendant and worked as a secretary for outpatient surgery and then as a secretary/monitor technician for the orthopedics department. In June 2020, Plaintiff complained to her manager that her workload was increased and that she was working well-past her scheduled hours because the hospital was short-staffed. Plaintiff also complained that she was experiencing workplace bullying. In August 2020, Plaintiff was transferred to a different department where she began being verbally harassed by her new manager who accused her of not helping out with patient care despite the fact that she was not a nurse. Plaintiff’s work environment became unbearably hostile, and her manager would not relieve her for lunch or breaks. When Plaintiff complained, the manager yelled and berated Plaintiff in front of other employees. In September 2020, Plaintiff complained to human resources about her department’s lack of personal protective equipment. Plaintiff’s manager began making threatening gestures to her which she believed was retaliatory. In November 2020, Plaintiff became unwell at work and was tested for COVID-19. After she returned to work after receiving her test results, she was subjected to burdensome work conditions. In early December, 2020, Plaintiff fell ill and took medical leave in January 2021. When Plaintiff returned, she was terminated for taking medical leave. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff Annette Brewer filed her Complaint against Defendant Methodist Hospital of Southern California.

On March 18, 2022, Defendant answered.

On August 18, 2023, the parties participated in IDC.

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), specifically, FROG 201.5.

I. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.300, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the Court finds that any of the following apply: (1) the answer to a particular interrogatory is incomplete or evasive, (2) the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is improper or inadequate, or (3) that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.300(b)(1).) 

Sanctions are mandatory against “any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2030.300(d).)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010, subd. (d).)

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that she originally propounded FROGs on Defendant on October 26, 2022. (Banker Decl., ¶1.) On January 3, 2023, Defendant served its responses. (Id., ¶2.) On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel regarding deficiencies in its responses. (Id., ¶3.) On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to narrow FROGs 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 12.7, and 16.1 and RPDs 25-29. (Id., ¶5.) On March 7, 2023, Defendant’s counsel agreed to provide a further response and agreed to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to 10 days after Defendant served a supplemental response. (Id., ¶6.) On April 3, 2023, Defendant represented it would produce documents by April 10, 2023. (Id., ¶7.) Plaintiff inquired after the missing responses again on April 18, 2023, May 11, 2023, and June 28, 2023. (Id., ¶¶8-9.) At IDC in August 2023, Defendant’s counsel stated he would be providing supplemental shortly. (Id., ¶11.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, Defendant has not provided additional responses. (Id., ¶12.) 

FROGs

Plaintiff seeks Defendant’s further response to FROG 201.5, which asks “Was any person hired to replace the employee after the employee’s termination or demotion? If so, state the person’s name, job title, qualifications, address and telephone number, and the date the person was hired.”

Defendant’s counsel represents that he served supplemental responses to this FROG. On reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s delay in serving the supplemental responses was inexcusable but does not dispute that Defendant responded to this FROG. 

Because Defendant filed a supplemental response, the motion to compel further responses to FROG 201.5 is denied.

Sanctions

Defendant did not serve supplemental responses until November 2023, three months after Defendant agreed to produce supplemental responses. However, the Court already granted Plaintiff’s request for sanctions as to its first motion regarding other FROGs. The Court declines to grant further sanctions for the same set of FROGs.

DATED:  December 14, 2023

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court