Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV11249, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV11249 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: 55
HENDRIX
v. KTLA, LLC 20STCV11249
Hearing Date: 1/31/23,
Dept. 55
#8: MOTION TO COMPEL FURHTER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL - TO DEFENDANT NEXSTAR INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST
TO KTLA, LLC, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR ORDER AWARDING MONETARY SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE SUM OF $1,818.81.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Plaintiff.
RP:
Defendant NEXSTAR INC., AS
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO KTLA, LLC
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 defendants’
further responses to form interrogatories, and imposing $1,818.81 sanctions
against Defendant and counsel, on grounds including the following:
·
Defendant Nexstar has provided evasive,
incomplete, and non-responsive statements in response to Form Interrogatories
1.1 and 12.6.
·
Form Interrogatory 1.1 asks Defendant
Nexstar to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to you
of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to
these interrogatories. Defendant only stated objections.
·
Form Interrogatory 12.6 asks: “Was a
report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name,
title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report;
(b) the date and type of report made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone
number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS,
and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the
report.” Nexstar evasively responded:: “Not as Defendant understands the term
’report.’ ”
RP Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, and imposing $900 sanctions
on Plaintiff’s counsel, for reasons including the following:
·
Notwithstanding valid objections, Nexstar
provided supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1 and 12.6, on
January 18, 2023.
·
Defendant supplemented its responses to
number 1.1, to identify its counsel as having assisted in the preparation
process.
·
Nexstar provided a straightforward
response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.6 and denied that any “report” was made related
to the “incident” (as redefined by Plaintiff during the meet and confer
process).
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is ordered off calendar as moot, in light
of supplemental responses served 1/18/23 to the motion filed 8/11/22.
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 while allowing the
propounding party to file a 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.
*IF BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE
RULING, PLEASE INFORM THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*