Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 20NWCV00474 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00474, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00474 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: SEC

VARGAS v. OUR BEST LIFE, INC.

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00474

HEARING: 12/08/22

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant RONALD CRUZ ABARO DDS, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) Nos. 2.6(a); 8.8; and 17.1 is GRANTED.

II. Defendant RONALD CRUZ ABARO DDS, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (set two) is GRANTED.

III. Defendant RONALD CRUZ ABARO DDS, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set three) is GRANTED.

IV. Defendant RONALD CRUZ ABARO DDS, INC.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (set four) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

The Court notes that there is an issue as to whether supplemental/initial verifications have ever been served. Plaintiff’s Counsel indicates that verifications were served. Defendants’ Counsel indicates that some, but not all, verifications have been received—some of which were erroneously labeled. As indicated below, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide supplemental responses accompanied by new verifications that are correctly labeled.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (set two)

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2033.2690(a).)

The Motion is GRANTED. On the merits, the RFAs at issue are relevant, and Plaintiff’s procedural and boilerplate responses are insufficient and improper.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified further responses without objections by no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (set one) Nos. 2.6(a); 8.8; and 17.1

“If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is…incomplete…or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response.” (CCP §2030.300(a).)

The propounding party must, in addition, establish that it complied with its obligation to “meet and confer.” (CCP §§2016.040, 2030.300(b); 2031.210(b).) Further, the propounding party is required to file a Separate Statement that sets forth each item to which further responses are requested, and that the factual and legal reasons for compelling it. (CRC Rule 3.1345(c).)

The following FIs are at issue:

FI No. 2.6. State: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today.

FI No. 8.8. Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT, if so, state: (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.

The Motion to Compel FI Nos. 2.6 and 8.8 is GRANTED. Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination action. Consequently, Plaintiff placed the issue of her wages and the mitigation of any future lost earnings at issue. Plaintiff is improperly asserting privacy objections.

FI No. 17.1. Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not a qualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; (d) identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.

The Motion to Compel FI No. 17.1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s response does not provide a separately state response for each individual admission, but rather lumps them all together. Plaintiff also fails to answer each of the 17.1 subparts with respect to each admission which is not an unqualified admission. Plaintiff shall provide a further code compliant response to this interrogatory which addresses each admission which she did not unconditionally admit.

The Motion is GRANTED in full. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce further verified responses without objection to each FI identified by no later than 15 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Motion to Compel Request for Production of Documents (set three)

“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 state 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.” (CCP §2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection… fails to serve a timely response to it…(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection… is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance…. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (emphasis added.)” (CCP §2031.300(a).)

In Opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that untimely and unverified responses were served. Plaintiff’s untimely responses improperly contain objections (asserted without leave of Court and/or stipulation from the Defendant). Plaintiff’s objections are STRICKEN.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s responses/supplemental responses indicate that “Plaintiff agrees to produce all response documents… which are currently within her possession, custody, or control.” As of the date Defendant’s Reply was filed, it does not appear that Plaintiff has produced any such promised documents.

The Motion is GRANTED in full. Plaintiff is ORDERED to Produce further verified responses without objections to each RPD identified and produce all response documents by no later than 15 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (set four)

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response… (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings… as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance…. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (emphasis added.)” (CCP §2030.290(a).)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and improper. The SI’s at issue are relevant to Plaintiff’s action and require meaningful responses.

The Motion is GRANTED in full. Plaintiff is ORDERED to Produce further verified responses without objections to each Special Interrogatory identified by no later than 15 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Sanctions

Reasonable sanctions in favor of Defendant are warranted. Plaintiff and her counsel are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay reasonable sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,640.00 ($300/hr. x 8 hrs.) + ($60 filing fee x 4), payable within 30 days of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.