Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

KARLA MEDINA;

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCV08081

DEPARTMENT 45

TENTATIVE RULING

Action Filed: 04/12/23

Trial Date: None Set

Hearing Date: February 20, 2024

Moving Party: Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Karla Medina

Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One)

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

The court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion for protective order. The court orders the definition of “IDENTIFY” be limited to the individual’s name, address, and last known contact information. The court strikes Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 12-14, 16, 24-25, 43, 46-48, 88, and 93. Defendant shall respond to Special Interrogatory (Set One) No. 9, without objections. The court orders that Defendant may produce timesheets responsive to Special Interrogatory (Set One) No. 82 instead of answering the interrogatory.

The court DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion for protective order. Defendant shall respond to the remaining Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of this ruling.

Background

This is an employment dispute. Plaintiff Karla Medina filed this action on April 12, 2023 against defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Cherry Killingsworth, alleging 15 causes of action involving FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, wage-and-hour, and other tort claims.

Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. filed this motion for protective order regarding Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) on August 22, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 11, 2023. Defendant replied on October 16, 2023.

Legal Standard

When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party may promptly move for a protective order, which must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration under CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2030.090(a).) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect a party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2030.090(b).) This order may include, but is not limited to, directing that interrogatories need not be answered; that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted; that the time for responding to the interrogatories be extended; that the response be made only on specified terms and conditions; that the method of discovery be an oral deposition instead of interrogatories; that a trade secret or other confidential information not be disclosed or only disclosed in a certain way; and that some or all answers be sealed and only opened on order of the court. (CCP §§ 2030.090(b)(1)-(7).)

If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may order that the party provide the discovery on terms and conditions that are just. (CCP § 2030.090(c).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds they acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposing sanctions unjust. (CCP § 2030.090(d).)

Discussion

Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. moves for a protective order to limit plaintiff Karla Medina’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) to 35 interrogatories. Alternatively, Defendant requests an order to: (1) Strike Special Interrogatories Nos. Nos. 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 82, 88, and 93 on the ground that they are unjustifiably duplicative; or (2) Strike Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, and 88 on the ground that the defined term, “IDENTIFY,” is compound and thus preparing a response to each of these interrogatories is unduly burdensome to Defendant.

Plaintiff contends Defendant fails to establish good cause for granting a motion for protective order. Plaintiff argues her requests are specifically tailored and directly relevant to the claims at issue and merely seek basic discovery to allow Plaintiff to conduct due diligence. Plaintiff asserts that her definition of “IDENTIFY” simply seeks detailed identification information of the witnesses for several categories. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant did not meet and confer in good faith and that Defendant’s counsel never followed up on several emails Plaintiff’s counsel sent as she now claims.

The court previously continued this matter to allow the parties to further meet and confer and to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to propose a meaningful reduction of special interrogatories. (See Oct 30, 2023 Order, p. 4.) The court incorporates its discussion from the October 30, 2023 Order as follows:

The court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant has not established good cause for a protective order. Defendant lays out in detail several examples of special interrogatories that are duplicative of Plaintiff’s form interrogatories. (See Motion, pp. 10-12.) Plaintiff’s opposition does not specifically respond to this. Further, the court agrees with Defendant that the definition of “IDENTIFY” effectively adds further interrogatories in one question. Plaintiff requests the following information each time an interrogatory asks to “IDENTIFY” a person: “provide the name of the job(s) or the job title(s), the dates during which the PERSON performed each job or work function, the hourly wage or salary associated with each job or work function, a detailed description of the job(s) or work, and a detailed description of any and all job or work duties or responsibilities associated with the job(s) or work performed by the PERSON who is the subject of the interrogatory.” (Rivera Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. C [Special Interrogatories, p. 4].) Given the duplicative interrogatories and the definition of “IDENTIFY” that effectively includes a substantial number of additional interrogatories, Plaintiff fails to show why she needs a number of interrogatories that is substantially above the 35-interrogatory limit.

Based on the foregoing, the court is strongly inclined to substantially reduce the number of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories. Plaintiff propounded 96 special interrogatories, which is substantially above the limit. However, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant did not meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff’s counsel attests Defendant’s counsel only requested that Plaintiff entirely withdraw the special interrogatories and that Defendant’s counsel did not follow up on several meet-and-confer communications as she now claims. (Huerta Decl., ¶¶ 4, 11.) Given these statements, the court finds it is appropriate to continue this matter to allow the parties to meet and confer further and to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to propose a meaningful reduction of special interrogatories. If the parties reach a resolution on this issue, Defendant shall take this motion off calendar. If the parties do not reach a resolution, the parties shall file a joint statement setting forth the remaining unresolved issues and a brief statement of each party’s position on each issue.

(Oct 30, 2023 Order, pp. 3-4.)

Here, Defendant’s counsel attests Plaintiff’s counsel did not propose any reduction of these interrogatories. (Iglesias Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant’s counsel declares a copy of the Joint Statement, with Defendant’s portion, was sent to Plaintiff on November 28, 2023 so that Plaintiff could provide her portion. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff never provided her portion of the Joint Statement. (See id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant filed their portion of the Joint Statement at the end of the day on November 28, 2023.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a responding declaration on November 30, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel attests she could not respond to Defendant’s joint-statement request on time because she was out of the office and was tending to a personal emergency concerning a vehicular accident that involved all three of her children. (Huerta Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel apologizes and requests the court to excuse the tardiness and consider the substance of her declaration. (Id.)

The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel establishes good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s late response. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration will be considered. Here, Plaintiff’s counsel indicates she agrees to limit the definition of “IDENTIFY” to individual’s name, address, and last known contact information. (See Huerta Decl., ¶ 4.) The court is satisfied with this limitation. The limitation substantially reduces and simplifies the definition of “IDENTIFY” so that it is not unduly burdensome to answer. Accordingly, this addresses Defendant’s request to strike as unduly burdensome and compound Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, and 88.

As to Defendant’s request to strike as duplicative Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 82, 88, and 93, Plaintiff’s counsel agrees to withdraw Nos. 12-14, 24-25, and 93. (See Huerta Decl., pp. 4-5, 8.) The court notes Plaintiff conditions her withdrawal of No. 12 based on receiving the identities of the natural persons involved in the termination decision, as set forth in No. 9. The court finds this is reasonable—Special Interrogatory No. 12 shall be stricken, but Defendant shall respond to No. 9, without objections.

As to Special Interrogatories Nos. 16, 43, 46-48, and 88, the court finds these should be stricken. As to Nos. 16 and 88, Plaintiff’s counsel provides no response, thus failing to show why the court should not strike them. As to No. 43 regarding who conducted the investigation into Plaintiff’s complaints, the court finds it is duplicative since No. 44 already asks who participated in the investigation. As to Nos. 46-48 regarding remedial actions Defendant took for Plaintiff’s complaints, these are duplicative because these matters fall within Nos. 42 and 45, which concern the results of every investigation Defendant undertook for each of Plaintiff’s complaints.

As to Special Interrogatory No. 82 regarding the number of hours per week that Plaintiff worked during her employment, Plaintiff’s counsel indicates she will accept a production of timesheets instead of a compilation. (See Huerta Decl., 8:4-10.) The court finds this compromise is reasonable.

As to the remaining interrogatories, the court finds Plaintiff sufficiently shows they are not duplicative or unduly burdensome to answer.

Accordingly, the court rules as follows:

The court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion for protective order. The court orders the definition of “IDENTIFY” be limited to the individual’s name, address, and last known contact information. The court strikes Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 12-14, 16, 24-25, 43, 46-48, 88, and 93. Defendant shall respond to Special Interrogatory (Set One) No. 9, without objections. The court orders that Defendant may produce timesheets responsive to Special Interrogatory (Set One) No. 82 instead of answering the interrogatory.

The court DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion for protective order. Defendant shall respond to the remaining Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 30 days of this ruling.

It is so ordered.

Dated: February 20, 2024

_______________________

ROLF M. TREU

Judge of the Superior Court