Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCVC00836, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCVC00836    Hearing Date: September 29, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Mayra Aguayo (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she worked at Burbank Periodontics, Dental Implants & Laser Surgery (“Burbank Periodontics”) as a hygiene coordinator from November 10, 2021 to August 15, 2022.  She alleges that her supervisors were Defendant Marc Y. Waki, Dr. Vahe Nakashyan, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Martina Elenkova.  Plaintiff alleges that she enjoyed her work, but over time, Dr. Waki began straining the professional relationship between himself and Plaintiff and began directing a flirtatious tone toward her in January 2022.  Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Waki would get physically close to her and placed his hand on her back when no one was looking.  Plaintiff alleges that toward the end of January 2022, Dr. Waki approached her, told her she was pretty, and touched her hair and face with his hand.  Plaintiff alleges that she would try to interact with Dr. Waki only when others were around, but when others were not around, he would touch her lower on her back until he began touching her buttocks.  Plaintiff alleges that in June 2022, Dr. Waki grabbed her hand and in July 2022, he physically got close to her and told her that he wanted Plaintiff.  In late July 2022, Plaintiff alleges that she asked Dr. Waki about changing her last name after recently having gotten married, but that Dr. Waki got visibly upset and began denying her permission to leave work early on Fridays to pick up her daughter though other employees were able to come and go as they pleased.  She alleges that Dr. Waki made the decision to terminate her on August 15, 2022 without any reason.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 23, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) harassment based on sex (Gov’t Code, § 12940(j)) against all Defendants; (2) discrimination based on sex (Gov’t Code, § 12940(a)) against Dr. Waki and Dr. Nakashyan; (3) discrimination based on marital status (Gov’t Code, § 12940(a)) against Dr. Waki and Dr. Nakashyan; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code, § 12940(h)) against Dr. Waki and Dr. Nakashyan; (5) battery against Dr. Waki; (6) sexual battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5) against Dr. Waki; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy against Dr. Waki and Dr. Nakashyan.   

On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Defendants Burbank Periodontics, Dental Implants & Laser Surgery and Marc Y. Waki DDS from the complaint.

B.     Motions on Calendar

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the motion for protective order and for sanctions in the amount of $2,310 against Dr. Waki and his counsel of record. 

On September 15, 2023, Defendant Dr. Waki filed an opposition brief.

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

            CCP § 2030.030(a)(1) states that a party may propound 35 SROGs that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. 

            For additional SROGs exceeding the 35 limit, CCP § 2030.040 states:

(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2030.090, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in 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.

(b) 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.) Section 2030.050 provides the statements that must be made in the declaration. 

            The responding party may promptly move for a protective order.  (CCP § 2030.090(a).)  “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: [¶] (1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered. [¶] (2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.”  (CCP § 2030.090(b)(1)-(2).) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for a protective order against Dr. Waki on the grounds that he propounded 109 Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”) on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff argues that the SROGs are duplicative, boilerplate, and/or nonsensical and thereby harassing. 

            On June 30, 2023, Dr. Waki served the 109 SROG requests on Plaintiff.  (Jurczak Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.)  With the SROG requests, Dr. Waki provided the declaration of counsel Gayane Muradyan regarding the additional discovery.  In the declaration of counsel Gayane Muradyan, defense counsel states that she is propounding on Plaintiff the 109 SROGs requests, which exceed the total number of SROGs permitted by CCP § 2030.030.  (Muradyan Decl. re Additional SROGs, ¶¶2-3.)  Defense counsel states that she is familiar with the issues and the previous discovery conducted by the parties and that she has examined each of the questions in this set.  (Id., ¶¶4-5.)  Defense counsel states the number is warranted because this action involves a complicated employment discrimination action and Dr. Waki is entitled to know Plaintiff’s allegations and supporting facts against him.  (Id., ¶6.)  Defense counsel states that none of the questions in the set is being propounded for any improper purpose or to harass Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.  (Id., ¶7.) 

            Plaintiff argues that her counsel attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel and offered to respond to 50 SROGs, but defense counsel declined to withdraw the SROGs or reduce the number of SROGs propounded.  Plaintiff states that due to the filing of the motion, Plaintiff will timely respond to the first 35 SROGs propounded.  (Jurczak Decl., ¶8.) 

            Plaintiff argues that defense counsel’s declaration in support of additional discovery is defective because it states that this is a complicated employment discrimination action, but Plaintiff claims this is a straightforward discrimination, harassment, and retaliation case and that most of the case is based on Dr. Waki’s misconduct.  Plaintiff also argues that the SROGs essentially take each line of the complaint and seek factual support from Plaintiff for a particular paragraph/allegation in the complaint, the identity of all persons with knowledge of the paragraph, and all the documents to support the paragraph.  Plaintiff argues that the SROGs are duplicative because the Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) already ask for witness information or Dr. Waki could have asked for all witness information in one SROG request.  She also argues that many of the responses to the SROGs are already within Dr. Waki’s possession (i.e., the identity of her duties and responsibilities at the office). 

            In opposition, Dr. Waki argues that Plaintiff has propounded 81 SROGs, 71 RPDs, and 77 RFAs to which he complied and responded, such that 109 SROGs is not unreasonable.  Dr. Waki argues that the declaration of defense counsel is legally sufficient, that the claims in this action are complicated and involve various employment causes of action, and the SROGs seek discoverable information. 

            The Court has reviewed the SROGs at issue.  The SROGs seek specific information as to dates/times, supporting facts, witness information, and identification of documents in support of the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint.  As pointed out by Plaintiff, witness information can be condensed into fewer SROG requests, as well as the interrogatories regarding the identity of documents.  Also, the SROGs are unnecessary in number such as when Dr. Waki asks over 3 SROGs why she did not report Dr. Waki’s actions to 3 different doctors, as opposed to asking why she did not report Dr. Waki’s actions to anyone at the office.  (See SROG Nos. 59-61.)  Dr. Waki’s discovery requests appear to have been drafted so that they would be specific to the allegations in the complaint, but they are excessive in number.  There are ways for Dr. Waki to limit the number of SROGs asked in this set of discovery. 

            Based on the parties’ papers, it appears that Plaintiff has responded to the first 35 SROGs.  The Court will allow Dr. Waki to choose and/or re-draft 15 SROGs to propound on Plaintiff.  Thus, Plaintiff will be ordered to respond to a total number of 50 SROGs: (1) SROG Nos. 1-35, which Plaintiff already responded to, and (2) 15 additional SROGs re-drafted and re-propounded by Dr. Waki. 

            Both parties request sanctions.  In light of the ruling on this motion, the Court declines to award sanctions to either party.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Mayra Aguayo’s motion for protective order is granted in part and denied in part such that Plaintiff is ordered to respond to a total of 50 Special Interrogatories of the 109 Special Interrogatories propounded.  Plaintiff has already responded to the first 35 SROGs and thus will be ordered to respond to 15 additional SROGs that Defendant Dr. Waki may choose or re-draft.  Dr. Waki is ordered to re-propound these 15 SROGs on Plaintiff. 

No sanctions shall be awarded on this motion. 

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.