Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2021-00024255-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 21, 2023

12/22/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00024255-CU-OE-CTL SALAZAR VS JCPENNEY PROPERTIES INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 11/30/2023

A. Defendant's motion to compel further responses to requests for admission is ordered OFF CALENDAR. No moving papers were ever received.

B. Defendant's motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (set two) is GRANTED. Although plaintiff provided second amended responses to requests 97 and 98, those responses were not verified. (Cameron Decl., ¶ 3.) 'Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.' Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636. Accordingly, plaintiff must serve a verification for the second amended responses by January 5, 2024.

C. Defendant's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories (set three) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatories 30, 31, 34, 35, 40, and 49 but only to the extent that a verification has not yet been provided for the second amended responses. At this time, plaintiff is not required to identify which witnesses she intends to call at trial, the substance of their expected testimony, or the documents she intends to use. See Hurtado v. Western Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1198, 1203. Instead, such information is disclosed in the joint trial readiness conference report at the trial readiness conference. See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.15. '[T]he purpose of the Discovery Act is to permit a party to prepare himself for trial, not to require one party, at his expense, to prepare the case for his opponent.' Bunnell v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723.

The motion is denied as to special interrogatories 45 and 47 for the reasons set forth above.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatories 32, 33, 37, 42, and 49 but only to the extent that a verification has not yet been served for the second amended responses. The court finds that plaintiff has provided sufficient responses to these interrogatories.

The motion is granted as to special interrogatories 38 and 43. Plaintiff's responses are evasive and incomplete.

In sum, plaintiff is directed to serve a verification for special interrogatories 30-35, 37, 40, 42, and 49 by January 5, 2024. Plaintiff must also serve further verified responses to special interrogatories 38 and 43 by January 5, 2024.

D. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (set two) is Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3044275  15 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SALAZAR VS JCPENNEY PROPERTIES INC [E-FILE]  37-2021-00024255-CU-OE-CTL GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

As an initial matter, the court finds that plaintiff made a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution given the history of the case, the nature of the current discovery dispute, and the fast approaching trial date. See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438. The evidence shows that plaintiff sent a detailed meet and confer letter regarding the challenged discovery and then participated in a two hour phone call with defense counsel. (Cameron Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Ex. L.) Turning to the merits, the motion is denied as moot as to requests 18, 21, and 35. Verified supplemental responses have been provided. (Cameron Decl., ¶ 17; Ex. M.) The motion is granted as to requests 22, 29, and 30. Defendant's responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. That section requires a responding party to 'specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.' The motion is denied as to requests 19 and 23. Defendant has submitted the declaration of its HR Operations Manager, Barbara Scott, who states that she 'do[es] not believe that any further documents exist responsive to this request other than the documents that have already been provided.' (Scott Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) The court cannot order a party to produce documents it does not have. See Thomas B.

v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 255, 263-64. Plaintiff's objections to Scott's declaration (ROA 312) lack merit and are overruled.

Accordingly, defendant must serve further verified responses to requests 22, 29, and 30 by January 5, 2024. In addition, defendant must produce documents responsive to these requests by January 19, 2024.

E. All requests for sanctions are denied. The court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h). Indeed, the foregoing rulings are somewhat of a mixed bag.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3044275  15