Judge Michael J. Strickroth, Case 2020-01147662 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2020-01147662, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff Jose Bartolo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories—General Nos. 12.1 and 15.1 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified further responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

“It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 . . . that civil discovery be essentially self-executing” (See Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434-35). “Conduct frustrates the goal of a self-executing discovery system when it requires the trial court to become involved in discovery because a dispute leads a party to move for an order compelling [compliance with a discovery mechanism].” Clement v. Alegre, (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court . . . any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . .” Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Ibid.)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ . . . Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. . . .The phrase ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ makes it clear that the scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial. ‘Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.’. . . These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611–1612, emphasis in original.

Code Civ. Proc. section 2017.010 provides in relevant part that “[u]nless otherwise limited by order of the court … any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence …”

Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 states that “[a]nswers must be complete and responsive” and it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210 states: “(a) The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: ¶ (1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. ¶ (2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. ¶ (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory. ¶ (b) In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity of the propounding party. ¶ (c) Each answer, exercise of option, or objection in the response shall bear the same identifying number or letter and be in the same sequence as the corresponding interrogatory. The text of that interrogatory need not be repeated, except as provided in paragraph (6) of subdivision (d).”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(e) states: “If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” Here, the specific requests are not listed in the notice of the motion, nor anywhere in the motion.

Here, Plaintiff contends Defendant’s general objections are improper because the Court ordered responses without objections. This is correct. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses without objections are stated in the 12-6-21 order.

Plaintiff contends Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 12.1 was evasive. Form Interrogatory 12.1 states: “State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; ¶ (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; ¶ (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and ¶ (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).”

Defendant’s response states: “This case pertains to claims of discrimination and alleged wage and hour violations, as alleged in the Complaint. CALIBER objects to this interrogatory as the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous, however, if the "INCIDENT" refers to the allegations in the complaint, Caliber's personnel are persons with knowledge. As such, the persons that have knowledge are: Darin Gilchriese, Judith Herrera, Jose Bartolo, Andrew Dorman, Chris Tuey, John Bailie, Corey Pace, Kevin Cobb, Daniel Jimenez and other employees of CALIBER. There is no "scene" of an "INCIDENT" and, therefore, no one could make a "statement at the scene of the INCIDENT" and, similarly, no one could hear "any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene Discovery is continuing. Other persons may be disclosed during discovery who have knowledge regarding the claims in the Complaint.”

The response does not clearly answer subparts (a), (b), (c) and (d). Defendant does not oppose the motion and, therefore, does not justify the sufficiency of the response or the objection.

Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response, including the name, address, and phone number, in Defendant’s possession.

Plaintiff contends Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 was evasive. Form Interrogatory 15.1 states: “Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: ¶ (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; ¶ (b) state the names, ADDRESSES and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and ¶ (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.”

Defendant’s response states: “CALIBER objects on the ground that this interrogatory seeks information that is premature based on the current information, investigation and the beginning of discovery. This information will be supplemented at the conclusion of discovery.”

The response does not clearly answer subparts (a), (b), (c) and (d). Defendant does not oppose the motion and, therefore, does not justify the sufficiency of the response or the objection. Further, it is not premature to require Defendant to state all of the information it has in support of its own affirmative defenses at any time in the case. Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide a further response.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jose Bartolo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,420.00.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Motion to Compel Production

Plaintiff Jose Bartolo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified further responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210 states: “(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: ¶ (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. ¶ (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. ¶ (3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. ¶ (b) In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity of the demanding party. ¶ (c) Each statement of compliance, each representation, and each objection in the response shall bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the corresponding item or category in the demand, but the text of that item or category need not be repeated.¶ (d) If a party objects to the discovery of electronically stored information on the grounds that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense and that the responding party will not search the source in the absence of an agreement with the demanding party or court order, the responding party shall identify in its response the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. By objecting and identifying information of a type or category of source or sources that are not reasonably accessible, the responding party preserves any objections it may have relating to that electronically stored information.”

“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also 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 statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 provides: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. ¶ (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. ¶ (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. … (e) If the party or affected person from whom discovery of electronically stored information is sought establishes that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense, the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause, subject to any limitations imposed under subdivision (g).” “Once good cause [is] shown, the burden shift[s] to [responding party] to justify his objection. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221, 23 Cal.Rptr. 393, 373 P.2d 457.)” Kirkland v. Superior Ct., (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98.

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” Here, the specific requests are not listed in the notice of the motion, nor anywhere in the motion.

Plaintiff contends Defendant’s response to Request to Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 22, 23, and 24 are not compliant. Defendant does not oppose the motion and, therefore, does not justify the sufficiency of the responses or any objections.

Defendant’s response to Request to Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 22, 23, and 24 are evasive statements of compliance. Although Defendant states it will produce responsive documents, it needs to verify that it will produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. Additionally, Defendant’s response to Request for Production No. 9 is completely evasive because it is unclear whether Defendant will produce documents or responsive documents do not exist. By the time Defendant provides a verified response, it should have completed a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand and know whether responsive documents exist.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jose Bartolo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,420.00.

Plaintiff to provide notice.