Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV11249, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV11249 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: 55
HENDRIX
v. KTLA, LLC 20STCV11249
Hearing Date: 12/9/22,
Dept. 55
#6: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL - TO DEFENDANT ROBERT DEANE, SET ONE.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Plaintiff.
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 response to form interrogatory 1.1, on grounds including
the following:
·
Good cause exists for full compliance with
this Form Interrogatory, because Plaintiff was injured as a result of Defendant
Deane’s alleged sexual harassment of Plaintiff and Defendant Nexstar Inc’s.
response to Plaintiff’s reporting the sexual harassment.
·
Plaintiff is entitled to discover
information about Defendants and those who are assisting them in defending
Plaintiff’s claims.
·
Plaintiff may need to take the depositions
of those who helped prepared responses to these interrogatories.
·
This Form Interrogatory was drafted by the
court, judicially written, and judicially approved, thus bringing it within the
scope of discoverable information.
·
Plaintiff is only seeking identifying
information of people who assisted in preparing discovery responses, not
privileged information.
·
Plaintiff did meeting and conferring.
RP Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, and awarding $900.00
in sanctions to opposing party, for reasons including the following:
·
Deane properly objected to interrogatory
1.1, 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 filed the unnecessary motion
without any meaningful attempt to meet and confer.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is granted.
Defendant ROBERT DEANE is to provide further responses
to Form Interrogatory 1.1 within 30 days.
Opposing counsel’s declaration does not address and
show whether a response to Form interrogatory 1.1, identifying people assisting
in preparing interrogatories, would reveal any privileged information.
Analogously, form interrogatory No. 12.3 is not automatically
covered by the work product privilege, and usually must be answered, except if
there is a showing that a response would reveal the attorney's work
product. Coito v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502; McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco
(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 443, 474.
Official form interrogatory number 12.3 should not be compelled, to the
extent it entails attorney work product.
Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1996) 47 Cal. App.
4th 214, 218.
Distinguishably, a court errs in compelling a full
response to interrogatory 12.2, because, on its face, it shows the listing
potential witnesses interviewed by counsel would necessarily reflect counsel's
evaluation of the case, by revealing the witnesses identified in a response to
interrogatory 12.1 that counsel deemed important to interview. Nacht, supra, at 217.
Next, a discovery motion should not be denied
automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and
confer in good faith. Obregon v. Sup.
Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434. But
see Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439 (motion
must be denied where lack of meet and confer).
“‘A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is
adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.’” Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001)
87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016. Accord Clement v. Alegre (2009)
177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293-94.
Finally, the Court denies sanctions, it finding
substantial justification for some positions of each side, where no California
case has addressed Form Interrogatory 1.1 in relation to privilege objections.