Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV11249, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV11249    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 55

HENDRIX v. KTLA, LLC                                                  20STCV11249

Hearing Date:  2/10/23,  Dept. 55

#5:   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 30-35, 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 $3,568.81.

 

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 Amended Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, and imposing $3,568.81 in sanctions against Defendant and counsel, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Defendant Nexstar has provided evasive, incomplete, and non-responsive statements in response to Special Interrogatories.

·         Defendant served no substantive responses to Amended Special Interrogatories Nos. 30-35, instead only providing boilerplate and meritless objections.

·         “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 2030.010.

·         Plaintiff made a good faith attempt to resolve this matter informally, meeting and conferring with opposing counsel.

 

 

 

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates denying, and imposing $900 in sanctions on Plaintiff , for reasons including the following:

 

• Special Interrogatories Nos. 30-35 seek Nexstar’s legal reasoning and theories

which are not discoverable. Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles

County, 15 Cal.3d 1, 5 (1975).

 

• Special Interrogatories Nos. 30-35 fail to specify a specific contention and instead,

in effect, impermissibly ask Nexstar for a list of its contentions in violation of Code

Civ. Proc. § 2030.010(b).

 

• Plaintiff’s Motion is completely devoid of any explanation as to why Nexstar’s

objections are improper and fails to demonstrate the invalidity of Nexstar’s valid

objections.

 

(Opposition, p. 2.)

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is denied.

The opposing request for sanctions is denied, the Court finding substantial justification for some positions of moving party.

The Plaintiff’s interrogatories impermissibly and very uniquely go beyond asking Defendant to state whether a specified contention is made, or to apply facts to law, by instead asking for legal reasoning, legal theories, or law citations, behind contentions.

“A party's contention may be the subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or theory behind the contention.”  Sav-On Drugs v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 1, 5.

Contention interrogatories involve the reflection of attorneys in formulating a response in a sophisticated process of legal reasoning, sorting through evidence and organizing it in terms of contentions a party is asserting.  Rifkind v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1263.

The Court finds substantial justification, because there is a death of law on point, and opposing party questionably relies upon law predating the California Discovery Act.  Discovery-related opinions decided before the current Civil Discovery Act of 1986 may have been superseded.  Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.