Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

ANDREW RISK,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant. Case No.: 22STCV37268

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories and requests for production is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing.

At the hearing, Plaintiff must indicate whether or not he is seeking to recover health insurance costs/expenses incurred for the time he was insured under his ex-wife’s health insurance plan.

In Plaintiff’s supplemental response to SROG No. 17, he indicates that he is unaware of the cost or payments made on this insurance and that he cannot access the documents relevant to this insurance. This begs the question as to how Plaintiff will present evidence on this point at trial. 

The motion is granted with respect to RFP No. 54. Plaintiff has not provided documents detailing the coverage of his replacement health insurance policy (Blue Shield) or his ex-wife’s health insurance policy under which he was covered for a time (Blue Cross).

At the hearing, Plaintiff should be prepared to discuss this issue as well. It seems that the issue with respect to the ex-wife’s policy is the same issue identified above.

With respect to any replacement policy purchased by Plaintiff, the Court cannot understand why such documents were not produced long ago.  

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Risk in the amount of $3,660. Sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for violations of the FEHA, negligent hiring, wrongful termination, violations of the labor code, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that while employed as a pilot with Defendant United Airlines, he requested accommodations for his disabilities, took medical leave, and made complaints about discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. After his doctor informed Plaintiff he could not obtain the COVID-19 vaccine due to breathing issues caused by COVID-19, Defendant investigated Plaintiff for failing to obtain the vaccine and threatened to terminate Plaintiff if he did not obtain the vaccine. In December 2021, Plaintiff was terminated.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff Andrew Risk filed his Complaint against Defendants United Airlines, Inc. and Brian Jackson.

On December 27, 2022, Defendants answered.

On January 4, 2024, the parties participated in IDC.

On February 3, 2024, Defendant Brian Jackson was dismissed from this action.

On March 11, 2024, Defendant filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories.

DISCUSSION 

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Production (“RPDs”) and Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”).

I. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to a request for production when the Court finds that any of the following apply: 

1. A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; 

2. A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or 

3. An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 

To prevail, the party moving for the order must first offer specific facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) 

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).) 

Unless notice of the motion to compel a further response is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 2031.310(c), 2030.300(c).) 

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 2031.310(h), 2030.300(d), 2033.290(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

Defendant’s counsel testifies that she originally propounded requests for written discovery on Plaintiff on February 28, 2023. (Kim Decl., ¶2.) On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff served responses to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶3.) Defendant served a second set of written discovery requests on Plaintiff on August 23, 2023. (Id., ¶4.) Plaintiff served responses to the second set of discovery requests on October 10, 2023. (Id., ¶5.) After the parties met and conferred over the deficient responses to the second set of discovery, Plaintiff served supplemental responses. (Id., ¶6-8.) However, the supplemental responses did not substantively address Defendant’s concerns. (Id., ¶8.) The parties met and conferred and participated in IDC. (Id., ¶¶9-14.) On January 21, 2024, Plaintiff served a third set of supplemental responses. (Id., ¶16.) After determining the responses were still deficient, the parties met and conferred again. (Id., ¶¶17-18.) Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that Plaintiff is no longer claiming he incurred costs for health insurance. (Id., ¶18.) On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff produced a log identifying the Bates identifier of each document he claims is responsive to each RPD. (Id., ¶19.) 

On February 7, 2024, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff agreed not to seek damages for out of pocket medical expenses incurred in relation to his claims against Defendant. (Kim Decl., ¶21.) Defendant no longer seeks discovery into the amounts Plaintiff paid for medical services or treatment. (Id.)

On March 12, 2024, after this motion was filed, Plaintiff served another set of supplemental discovery responses. (Gilanians Decl., ¶12.) 

Defendant concedes that the supplemental responses address many issues raised in its motion to compel further responses. (Reply, p.4.) However, Defendant continues to seek further responses to SROG 17, which asks whether Plaintiff is seeking to recover health insurance costs or expenses incurred for the time he was covered under his ex-wife’s health insurance plan, and if so, the corresponding costs and expense of the coverage.  Defendant also continues to seek a further response to Request for Production No. 54. Any objections that Plaintiff has with respect to these requests are without merit.

The Court will discuss both SROG 17 and RFP 54 with the parties at the hearing.

The rest of the motion to compel further responses is denied because Plaintiff provided complete supplemental responses to Defendant’s SROGs and FROGs, though late.

Sanctions

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s conduct in failing to serve complete supplemental responses for over one year despite participating in an IDC where it was clearly stated what must be produced amounts to misuse of the discovery process. However, both the hourly rates and time spent on this discovery motion are unreasonable. The Court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $3,660 for eight hours of attorney time at a rate of $450 per hour and filing fees. 

DATED:  March 25, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court