Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2023-00034772-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00034772-CU-WT-CTL ZAMORA VS NORTH COUNTY HEALTH PROJECT INCORPORATED [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 02/08/2024

Plaintiff Brenda Zamora's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set one are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. No sanctions are imposed.

First, the court takes issue with the presentation of issues in this matter. For Plaintiff's part, the separate statements are not a substitute for at least summarizing in the memorandum of points and authorities the pertinent legal arguments specific to the discovery requests or categories of discovery requests for which further responses are sought. Here, Plaintiff's memoranda take an overly general approach and do not state how or why any specific response should be compelled. And while both sides copy and paste vast swathes of argument throughout their separate statements, Defendant's approach is particularly tedious, copying without differentiating between responses such that certain arguments made by Plaintiff go unanswered. The court advises that future discovery papers filed in this department should seek to minimize the length of the separate statements and increase the usefulness of the memoranda. Despite these issues, the court has reviewed the discovery disputes at issue and makes the following rulings.

Further responses are compelled as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 3.7, 4.1, 12.2, 15.1, 16.2, and 17.1.

While the court overrules Defendant's objections to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1 and 16.1, the court understands that if Defendant is denying all allegations, it cannot identify individuals who witnessed the alleged conduct or point to other individuals who may be responsible for the alleged conduct.

Further responses are also compelled as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3-5, 8-15, 16-17, 20-22, 23, 28, 31, 33-34, 37-38, 40, and 42. No further response is compelled as to Special Interrogatory No. 2 as that information is equally, if not more, available to Plaintiff and is a matter of public record available on the ROA. With respect to Special Interrogatory 12, which asks Defendant to 'IDENTIFY all PERSONS who held the same position as PLAINTIFF from September 7, 2022 to present,' a further response is compelled but limited to persons employed by Defendant at the same location. This limitation extends to Special Interrogatory Nos. 13-14.

For all responses to either form or special interrogatories that refer to produced documents, more specificity is required. Defendant may either answer the requests directly or point to specific BATES page numbers produced that answer the request. In most cases, simply identifying the specific page numbers will cure the defect. To the degree Defendant maintains its privilege objections, a privilege log must be produced. For any non-parties whose contact information is requested, that information must be produced unless those non-parties are represented by Defense counsel. If the non-parties are Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092449  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ZAMORA VS NORTH COUNTY HEALTH PROJECT INCORPORATED  37-2023-00034772-CU-WT-CTL represented by Defense counsel, their contact information need not be disclosed.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092449  7