Judge Malcolm Mackey, Case 20STCV11249 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV11249, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11249 Hearing Date: September 2, 2022 Dept: 55

HENDRIX v. KTLA, LLC 20STCV11249

Hearing Date: 9/2/22, Dept. 55

#7: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL - TO DEFENDANT ROBERT DEANE, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR ORDER AWARDING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE SUM OF $3,218.81.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP: Plaintiff.

RP: Defendant ROBERT DEANE.

Summary

On 3/20/20, Plaintiff BERNIE HENDRIX filed a Complaint.

On 7/6/21, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that the employer constructively terminated Plaintiff’s employment as camera operator, including by allowing ongoing sexual harassment by a coworker, and reducing hours, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaining about the harassment instead of putting up with it in order to get along with the other employee.

The causes of action are:

1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(J))

2) DISCRIMINATION (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(A))

3) RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(H))

4) WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

5) FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(K))

6) SEXUAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY

7) NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION

8) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

9) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling Defendant ROBERT DEANE’s further responses to general form interrogatories, and imposing monetary sanctions ($3,218.81) sanctions, on grounds including the following:

· Defendant provided evasive, incomplete, and non-responsive statements in response to certain Form Interrogatories.

· Plaintiff made multiple good faith attempts to resolve these matters informally with opposing counsel.

· Form Interrogatories 2.1, 2.5, and 2.6: Defendant Deane did not respond to parts (b) and (c) of interrogatory 2.1 about his name. As for 2.5, Plaintiff’s counsel would not use the attorney-represented Defendant’s address to contact the client, but can use Deane’s address as identifying information. As for 2.6, Defendant Deane does not provide the address or telephone number of his employer. He does not provide the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment from five years before the incident until today.

· Form Interrogatories 1.1, 2.2, 2.7, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10: Defendant Deane provided zero substantive answers to the above form interrogatories, and instead provided objections only. Defendant improperly relies upon a myriad of boilerplate and meritless objections. Defendant interposed the same general and boilerplate objections to nearly all interrogatories, without any effort to explain or identify how each objection applies.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, and awarding $750.00 in sanctions to opposing party, for reasons including the following:

· Notwithstanding the validity of Mr. Deane’s objections, Mr. Deane supplemented, and fully answered Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 – 2.7, 2.11 – 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 – 12.7, 2.11 – 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 – 12.7, 13.1 – 13.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 16.1 – 16.6, and 16.9, pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties during their meet and confer.

· Deane had properly objected to interrogatory 1.1, on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the term “prepared or assisted in the preparation,” and on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine as counsel may have participated in the preparation of the responses.

· Plaintiff unclearly defined the term “INCIDENT” as being: “The circumstances and events surrounding the alleged sexual harassment of Bernie Hendrix by Robert Deane occurring in or about February 2018, through February 2019, as described in Plaintiff’s complaint.”

· Deane had properly objected to Interrogatory Nos. 16.1 – 16.6, 16.9, and 16.10, which relate to Plaintiff’s loss of income because Mr. Deane had yet to conduct meaningful discovery into Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

· Plaintiff’s deposition should have occurred before Plaintiff served written discovery.

· Plaintiff filed the unnecessary motion without any meaningful attempt to meet and confer.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is ordered off calendar, in light of supplemental responses served after the motion was filed, which should resolve or greatly narrow the issues.

Where respondents served discovery responses after parties have filed motions to compel responses, courts have broad discretion as to ruling, including ordering the motion off calendar and allowing the propounding party to file any desired, proper motion to compel further responses. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.

Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council entail fundamentally routine discovery of witness contact information. Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1250. “Official Form Interrogatory 4(a)(2) (DISC-001) allows you to define ‘INCIDENT’ with a unique description. This may avoid the ambiguous and confusing objection.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 8:933.9. There are a limited array of objections to form interrogatories that judges might sustain, especially attorney-client privilege or work product. Id. at § 8:933.5.