Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

TAMIKA YOUNGBLOOD, 

Plaintiff;  

vs. 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., 

Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV11074 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AS TO GENUINESS OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE.

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for admission, set one is GRANTED.

Plaintiff must serve verified further responses without objections within 15 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $980 are imposed jointly and severally on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel of Record.

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for race discrimination, disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to take corrective action, denial of reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in the interactive process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to prove and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized statement to employee, violation of labor code section 206.5, and violation of CFRA/FMLA leave rights. Plaintiff Tamika Youngblood alleges that she was employed with the County of Los Angeles (“County” erroneously sued as Department of Children and Family Services). (FAC ¶14.) In 2016, Plaintiff was assigned to DCFS’s Santa Fe Springs office. (FAC ¶15.) Defendant Lopez was Plaintiff’s supervisor at the Santa Fe Springs office. (FAC ¶18.) 

While Plaintiff was on FMLA disability leave, Lopez harassed Plaintiff by contacting her during her leave and complaining about her absence. (FAC ¶20.) Lopez demanded that Plaintiff take a demotion and threatened her. (FAC ¶21.) Lopez treated Plaintiff differently from other employees by making racially derogatory comments about African-American women to Plaintiff, changing Plaintiff’s work schedule because of her race, requiring Plaintiff alone to check in when she arrived or took breaks, refusing to give Plaintiff a full set of keys, and requiring Plaintiff to prove a relative of hers had died. (FAC ¶¶22-29.) Lopez fabricated disciplinary problems about Plaintiff and attempted to have employees sign off on fabricated incident statements about her. (FAC ¶30.) Lopez informed Plaintiff that an employee from human resources wanted to speak with her. (FAC ¶30.) However, the human resources employee turned out to be a conflict resolution specialist pertaining to disciplinary action. (FAC ¶30.) Lopez demanded that Plaintiff not get a lawyer. (FAC ¶30.) Plaintiff received a Notice of Intent to Suspend. (FAC ¶30.) After Plaintiff filed discrimination complaints against Lopez and another supervisor, Defendant Perez, Defendants refused to let Plaintiff return to work. (FAC ¶32.) Despite County allowing most employees to work from home at the time, Plaintiff’s request to telework 2-3 days a week was denied. (FAC ¶32.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants County, Raul Perez, and Jennifer Lopez.

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On March 30, 2023, Defendants answered.

On September 20, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Admission, set one.

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Admission, set one.

A party to whom requests for admission have been directed must respond in writing under oath separately to each request. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.210(a).) A party may respond to a request for admission by answering that the party admits or denies the matter involved in the request. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2032.210(b).)

(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general

(Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.290(a).)

Here, Defendants move for Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Admission, set one on the grounds that Plaintiff served boilerplate objections and non-substantive responses to each request. Defendants’ counsel testifies that Plaintiff served the deficient responses on December 6, 2022. (Galarza Decl., ¶3.) The same day, Defendants’ counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id., ¶4.) Defendants filed a request for IDC on December 16, 2022, which stayed the date for the filing of this motion. (Id., ¶5.) On July 6, 2023, the Court asked Defendants to reserve the earliest available date for this motion. (Id., ¶7.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel represents that he did serve supplemental responses on August 7, 2023. (Westmoreland Decl., ¶8.) Plaintiff’s counsel also testifies that he sent Defendants’ counsel meet and confer emails and did not receive a response. (Id., ¶7.)_Defendants’ counsel alleges that she never received the supplemental responses. (Ferguson Decl., ¶¶1-5.) Defendants’ counsel searched her email and instructed Defendant Lopez, who was listed on the proof of service for the supplemental responses, to search her email. (Id.) They found no emails from Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id.) Defendants’ eservice agreement specified that any electronically served documents should be emailed to eservice@gphlawyers.com, nohemi.ferguson@gphlawyers.com, clifton.baker@gphlawyers.com, and adriana.ramirez@gphlawyers.com. (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff included emails in the opposition showing the email containing the supplemental responses were only served on Ferguson, Defendants’ lead counsel, and not on the other email addresses specified in the eservice agreement. (Id.) Despite Defendants’ counsel accommodating Plaintiff’s counsel’s requests for eservice, Plaintiff’s counsel stopped including the other emails in Defendants’ eservice agreement. (Id.) Defendants’ counsel speculates that the email containing the supplemental responses went to spam and was automatically deleted by September 2023. (Id., ¶5.) It appears this dispute arose from a misunderstanding over email.

Even if Defendants received the responses, they were unverified. Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.) 

Because the responses were unverified, they are tantamount to no response at all. Accordingly, the operative responses are the original responses containing only objections.

Requests 1-35:

These requests for admission asked Plaintiff to admit or deny the genuineness of the following documents:

• Telephonic interactive process meetings

• Work status reports 

• Medical notes from Dr. John L. Fisher

• Email communications from plaintiff regarding a work note

Plaintiff objects to these requests on the grounds that they lack foundation, are hearsay, seek legal conclusions, refer to documents that are not attached to the discovery request, refer to documents that are not identified by bates number, and fail to identify how to locate the documents.

The Court finds that the RFAs do not lack foundation, contain hearsay, or seek legal conclusions because the requests merely ask Plaintiff to admit or deny whether documents were valid. Additionally, each document is identified by bates number and Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ counsel’s declaration shows that the referenced documents were attached to another email referenced by the email containing the RFAs. Plaintiff’s objections to Requests 1-35 are without merit. Defendants’ motion to compel further is granted as to these requests.

Requests 36-270

These requests for admission asked Plaintiff to admit or deny the genuineness of the following documents:

• Emails between Plaintiff, Lopez, and other staff on various workplace issues

• A letter to Plaintiff regarding a request for internal affairs interview

• Work status reports from Kaiser

• An after visit summary from Kaiser

• A return to work letter from Kaiser

• Request for leave of absence related to COVID-19

• Letters from Global Psychological services for Plaintiff placing her off work

• Letters from Western Pacific psychological network, Inc. about Plaintiff being off work, returning to work, and ability to return to work

• Requests for leave donations

• Interactive process meeting documents and records

• Plaintiff’s Employee grievance form

• COLA eCaps Procurement User Registration Forms signed by Plaintiff

• COLA DCFS Time Details

• Letters from COLA DCFS to Plaintiff regarding intent to suspend, discipline proposals, counseling, probation, conferences, proof of absence, and intent to discharge and reassign

• COLA Report on Probationer

• COLA Agreement for acceptable use of information technology and other signed forms and acknowledgements 

• Acknowledgement and accountability and their effects on interpersonal relationships in the workplace by Plaintiff

• State of California Division of Worker’s Compensation Notice of Offer and other workers’ compensation documents

• COLA Santa Fe Springs Conference sheets

• Plaintiff’s mileage claims 

• COLA DCFS Request for time off or overtime

• COLA Timesheet details

• Plaintiff’s affidavits from 2017

• COLA Santa Fe Springs Conference Sheets

• COLA Timesheet corrections

• Pictures of Plaintiff and her workspace

• Documents provided by Plaintiff

• Plaintiff’s official mileage vehicle placard

• Plaintiff’s training report

• COLA release authorization report

• Plaintiff’s certificates of achievement

• COLA DCFS Employment waivers

• Plaintiff’s performance evaluations

• COLA DCFS employment authorization form 

• County Policy Equity report notification forms

• Letter from Kaiser regarding Plaintiff’s transfer request

• Plaintiff’s earnings and time history

Plaintiff objected to these requests on the grounds that they seek legal conclusions, referred to documents that were not attached to the discovery requests, did not identify the documents by bates stamp, referred to documents that could not be located, and that the number of requests was unreasonable. 

Again, the Court finds that these requests did not seek legal conclusions because they merely asked Plaintiff to admit whether the documents were genuine. Additionally, the documents referred to in the requests were each identified by bates number and attached in another email. Finally, the requests only required Plaintiff to review the attached documents and fill in “admit” or “deny” in a corresponding column. The Court does not find that the volume of requests was unreasonable because Plaintiff’s response would have been brief. Plaintiff’s objections to these requests are thus without merit. Defendants’ motion to compel further is granted as to these requests.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.290(e).) 

Here, Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, set one was granted. Because Plaintiff served unverified supplemental responses that are tantamount to no response at all and the objections made by Plaintiff were not well founded, the Court finds that Plaintiff was not substantially justified in opposing this motion. Defendants’ request for over $2,000 in attorney’s fees is 

excessive. The Court awards Defendants $980 for four hours of attorney time plus filing fees. 

DATED: October 18, 2023 

________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court