Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00000528-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  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  Wrongful Termination Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00000528-CU-WT-CTL SERRATOS VS GAMMON [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 06/30/2023

Tentative Rulings on Motions to Compel Discovery

Serratos v. Gammon, Case No. 2023-00528 Oct. 20, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a wrongful termination/wage and hour case arising from plaintiff's employment with a local pool contractor for three months in 2022. The complaint was filed in early 2023, and defendants answered seasonably. ROA 12. At the due-course CMC, the court set the case for trial in June of 2024. ROA 24-28.

Presently, plaintiff seeks orders compelling further responses to RFAs, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. ROA 29-40. Defendant Gammon Pools filed opposition. ROA 41-43. Plaintiff filed reply. ROA 44. The court has read the papers, and no further submissions are permitted in connection with these motions.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.

'[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

'California's civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit.' Field v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 703, 705.

B. A party may request that another litigant 'admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010. Each response to the RFAs must be 'complete and straightforward.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(a). If the propounding party believes that the responses to RFAs are deficient in some respect or that any objections thereto are not well taken, he or she may make a motion to compel further responses. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037442  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SERRATOS VS GAMMON [IMAGED]  37-2023-00000528-CU-WT-CTL C. Answers to interrogatories must be complete and responsive. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. After receiving a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move to compel a further response if an answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or not sufficiently specific, or an objection to an interrogatory is meritless or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a). 'While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.' Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 541.

D. When the Discovery Act authorizes a monetary sanction – such as Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d) and 2033.290(d) – the trial court must impose such a sanction unless the offending party acted with substantial justification or the imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). However, in awarding sanctions, 'a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs...in order to reach a reasonable award.' Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc.

(2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

3. Discussion and Rulings.

A. The motions to compel further responses are denied as moot. Verified supplemental responses have been provided. (Rios Decl., ¶ 5; Exs. D, E, F.) Any challenge to the sufficiency of the supplemental responses must be resolved by future motion.

B. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied. 'The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though...the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.' CRC 3.1348(a). Here, however, the court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d), 2033.290(d). Defense counsel states that his first child was born during the time the parties were meeting and conferring regarding the original discovery responses. (Rios Decl., ¶ 3.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3037442  37