Judge Richard Y. Lee, Case 30-2022-01260356 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01260356, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Discovery Protective Orders

Plaintiff, Ghazala Khan (“Plaintiff”), moves for an order prohibiting Defendant, VincentBenjamin Group LLC (“Defendant”), from abusing the discovery process to harass Plaintiff, and awarding monetary sanctions in the sum of $30,000 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for persisting over objection in seeking discovery.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks the issuance of a protective order prohibiting/limiting discovery as follows: (1) Plaintiff is protected from disclosing any and all current and future employers from any further request made by or on behalf of the Defendant, its agents, or attorneys; (2) No further subpoenas should be issued regarding employers of Plaintiff; (3) Defendant should be precluded from requesting further information related to Plaintiff’s previous, current or future employers.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of the moving papers. Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing. (California Rules of Court, rule, 3.1300(c).)

The Court additionally notes that Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of the reply papers. All reply papers shall be filed and a copy served on each party at least five court days before the hearing and “shall be served by personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means consistent with Sections 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013, and reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers or reply papers, as applicable, are filed.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b)-(c).) “[U]nless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to "serve and file" a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or entity when required by statute, rule, or court order, and that the document and a proof of service of the document must be filed with the court. (California Rules of Court, rule 1.21(b).)

A substantive opposition was timely filed and served by Defendant such that it appears that the moving papers were served and no prejudice appears. Thus, the Court will consider the motion.

Plaintiff asserts that the motion seeks to notify the Court of abusive behavior that has been committed by Defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff contends that in her responses to the first set of discovery, she intentionally withheld her current employer’s information from her written responses because she did not want them harassed and annoyed, and as she felt her age (20s) and perceived lack of experience made her employment fragile. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s counsel’s conduct has been malicious and cruel with the intent to cause additional harm to Plaintiff, and that without notifying or discussing the issue with counsel, Defendant’s counsel stalked Plaintiff’s online presence using primarily her LinkedIn profile, and then blindly issued subpoenas to at least five different businesses, including her current employer, seeking all information that was held by the business, without properly notifying Plaintiff of the issuing Subpoenas in violation of CCP sections 1985.3 and 1985.6. Plaintiff contends that when her current employer was served with the subpoena, they terminated her within a few weeks of her beginning the job.

Plaintiff’s counsel opines that any employment information, except for Plaintiff’s wages, is not relevant to the litigation at hand; that Defendants need to convince the trier of fact that Plaintiff was terminated for cause and not in retaliation for reporting the unlawful activity; and that Plaintiff’s past employment and any history there, as well as Plaintiff’s future employment and any history there is irrelevant as to what happened with Defendant, such that discovery should be limited/prohibited pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010. Plaintiff additionally contends that the overall intrusiveness of the discovery outweighs the likelihood that the demands will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues such that a protective order is justified under

Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030. Plaintiff further contends that the discovery sought seeks to invade the privacy rights of Plaintiff with regard to personnel records. Plaintiff provides that Plaintiff has attempted to meet and confer with Defendant in good faith on multiple occasions, but defense counsel refused to engage in a discussion with Plaintiff over the issue, and that monetary sanctions in the amount of $30,000 should be awarded against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 for the misuse of the discovery process, and under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(b).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion is without merit because the motion is either premature or untimely since it has served six (6) subpoenas for Plaintiff’s employment and medical records, all third parties have responded, and Plaintiff has never served objections to them or filed motions to quash, as well since Plaintiff essentially seeks to quash subpoenas that have not been issued and may never be issued.

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s counsel did not properly meet and confer as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020, and only sent one email on March 28, 2023, and did not provide an explanation or justification for requesting that Defendant not serve any subpoenas to any of Plaintiff’s employers going forward. Defendant additionally contends that even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff can properly bring this motion, the discovery she seeks to prevent is authorized by the Civil Discovery Act, and Defendant is entitled to serve subpoenas on because Defendant has a right to defend itself against Plaintiff’s claims and the information sought by the subpoenas issued in this action are relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for damages, Plaintiff’s work performance, tenure with other employers, the type of work that she performed, and her compensation, which are all probative of her claim for lost wages. Defendant contends that to the extent Plaintiff suffered from or sustained any physical or emotional injuries during or as a result of her employment with other employers, that information is also relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages. Defendant also contends that assuming Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(a) applies, Plaintiff fails to establish that she meets the prerequisites for the issuance of a protective order; that the issuance of subpoenas on third parties does not create an undue burden or expense on Plaintiff or her counsel; that to date, none of the third parties have ever objected on those grounds; that the potential benefit from this information is significant as it pertains to Plaintiff’s entitlement to and the extent of her damages; and that there are no less intrusive means of obtaining the information sought since Plaintiff never represented that she has the information in her possession and she would have to obtain the information from her former or current employers. Defendant further argues that to the extent Plaintiff claims subpoenas invades her privacy rights, her counsel should have sought a protective order limiting the use of such information to this litigation, not a blanket motion precluding Defendant from issuing subpoenas at all, as well as that Code of Civil Procedure section s2019.010 and 2019.030(a) do not apply as they only pertain to discovery propounded on a party to an action, not on a third party. Finally, Defendant contends that it, not Plaintiff, is entitled to sanctions for having to oppose this frivolous motion which has been brought with no justification, and requests sanctions in the amount of $2,170 for having to oppose the motion.

Meet and Confer

A motion for protective order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.020 and 2019.030 “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.020(a) 2019.030(b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides that “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel regarding the filing of motion for a formal protection order based on Defendant’s subpoena practice, and the fact that Plaintiff lost her job after her current employer received a subpoena, and that Defendant’s counsel did not respond to his email. (Declaration of Christopher Monelt, ¶¶ 7-8, ROA 72; Ex. C to Declaration of Hazel U. Poei, ROA 134.)

Defendant’s counsel states that on March 28, 2023, “I declined Mr. Monelt’s request to enter into a stipulation regarding the subject of his email of the same date,” and attaches a copy of the email Plaintiff’s counsel sent. (Declaration of Hazel U. Poei, ¶ 7.)

A single email which does not set forth the basis of Plaintiff’s planned motion for protective order or the specific protective order being sought, and demands a stipulation to protect Plaintiff from divulging any future employers to Defendant’s counsel does not demonstrate a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.

Despite the lack of meet and confer, it is apparent to the Court that additional efforts to meet and confer are unlikely to resolve the issue. Thus, the Court will address the merits of the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(a) provides, “[t]he court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” (CCP § 2017.020(a).)

“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 . . .” (CCP § 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.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030 provides, in relevant part:

“(a) The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in Section 2019.010 if it determines either of the following:

“(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

“(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

“(b) The court may make these determinations pursuant to a motion for a protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.030(a)-(b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.010 provides that any party may obtain discovery by oral and written depositions, interrogatories to a party, inspections of documents, things, and places; physical and mental examinations; (e) requests for admission; and simultaneous exchanges of expert trial witness information. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.010(a)-(f).)

Although Defendant asserts that Code of Civil Procedure sections 2019.010 and 2019.030(a) applies to discovery propounded on a party to an action and not a third party, no authority is provided for this contention. The plain language of the statutes are not so restrictive.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff fails to show that the broad, blanket protective order requested is warranted in this case.

First, Defendant does not show that a motion for protective order can only be brought at a particular time or circumstance, rendering it premature or untimely as a general matter. However, to the extent that the motion essentially seeks to quash subpoenas that have not been issued, it appears premature.

Second, although Plaintiff argues that discovery concerning and on Plaintiff’s former, current, and/or future employers creates a burden and is intrusive, Plaintiff does not present evidence supporting the same. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Plaintiff lost her job after Defendant issued a subpoena to Plaintiff’s employer, but there is no competent evidence establishing this assertion. Arguments that are nothing more than conclusions of counsel, made without supporting documentation or citation to the record, should not be considered. (See Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 101-102.)

Plaintiff also argues that the discovery on her past, current, and/or future employers invades her privacy, but there is no currently pending discovery request or subpoena from which the Court might evaluate privacy implications. A broad assertion of privacy untethered to a pending request, and based on a request contained in a past subpoena is insufficient. To the extent that past subpoenas to Plaintiff’s employer contained a request that intruded upon Plaintiff’s privacy rights, an appropriate motion should have been brought as to such request(s). Thus, Plaintiff does not support her assertions that discovery on her employers are burdensome or intrusive. Nor does Plaintiff refute that discovery on her employer may be relevant to Defendant’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s damages. As a result, Plaintiff does not show that burden or intrusion of discovery on her employers clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and Plaintiff does not show that the requested protective order is justified under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(b).

Third, as for a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030, Plaintiff fails to show that any discovery sought by way of her past, current, or future employers is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or that any particular subpoena to an employer or discovery request propounded on Plaintiff would be unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. Counsel’s argument that this is the case is insufficient.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES, Plaintiff’s requested motion for protective orders (1) to protect Plaintiff from disclosing any and all current and future employers from any further request made by or on behalf of the Defendant, its agents, or attorneys; (2) to prohibit any further subpoenas regarding employers of Plaintiff; and (3) to preclude Defendant from requesting further information related to Plaintiff’s previous, current or future employers.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $30,000 against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 for the misuse of the discovery process, and under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020(b).

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,170 for having to oppose the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020 (b) states, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.030(c) states, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.030(c).)

Here, in light of the Court’s ruling, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

As to Defendant’s request, Plaintiff failed to establish that the requested protective order was warranted, and it does not appear that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of unjust. The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,860, to be paid within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant to give notice as to this motion.

Motions to Compel Further Responses Form Interrogatories – General (Set 1) (ROA 43)

Defendant Vincentbenjamin Group, LLC originally moved for an order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300, compelling Plaintiff GHAZALA KHAN (“Plaintiff”) to provide verified, Code-compliant supplemental responses – without any objections—to Defendant’s Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.6 and 9.2 within ten (10) calendar days of the Court’s Order; and order for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher K. Monelt and The Southern California Injury Law Group, for misusing the discovery process and failing to reasonably, and in good faith, meet and confer, in the amount of $4,140.00.

On April 13, 2023, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (Set 1), Nos. 208.1, 212.4(b)-(d), and 212.5(b)-(e) (ROA 50) came on for hearing. After oral argument, said motion and another discovery motion, a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set 1) (ROA 43) were continued to July 20, 2023. (See ROA 96.) The Court ordered counsel to submit a Joint Statement of outstanding issues in advance of the July 20, 2023 hearing, no later than June 30, 2023. (Ibid.)

A Joint Statement was timely filed on June 29, 2023, and provides that the sole discovery issue that remains is Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatory – General No. 2.6. (See ROA 132.) In the Joint Statement, Defendant provides that at Plaintiff’s deposition on June 7, 2023, Plaintiff was instructed not to answer a question related to Plaintiff’s employment following her employment with Defendant, and that on June 22, 2023 and June 23, 2023, Defendant attempting to meet and confer concerning the remaining interrogatory at issue, but that Plaintiff’s counsel responded to Defendant’s June 23, 2023 email that the request for supplemental information was untimely, that the court would not have jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff would not be amending the response. Defendant also provides that on June 28, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent a draft joint statement containing Defendant’s portion and requesting Plaintiff to include Plaintiff’s statement, but Plaintiff stated they would not be signing or providing Plaintiff’s portion of the joint statement.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Orders appears to attempt to address the instant motion. To the extent that it does, such arguments are disregarded. “The only briefing allowed is the Joint Statement.” (See ROA 96, the Court’s 04/13/23 Minute Order.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.6 is incomplete; that Plaintiff did not even assert any objections to these interrogatories; that Defendant attempted to meet and confer, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to properly meet and confer or provide verifications or further responses; and that the Court should impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel for counsel’s failure to make a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the issues informally and for misusing the discovery process.

Plaintiff, in Opposition, contends that she intentionally withheld her current employer’s information because she did not want them harassed or annoyed and was fearful of her ability to maintain a job in the recruiting industry; that Plaintiff’s reluctance to provide her employer information was affirmed when she was terminated by her current employer a few weeks after Defendant served the employer with a subpoena (Plaintiff contends Defendant “stalked” her LinkedIn profile and blindly issued subpoenas to her current employer); that Plaintiff’s counsel opines that any employment information except for her wages is not relevant to the litigation; that Plaintiff offered to execute a medical authorization release when she submitted her discovery responses to ease the burden of counsel obtaining her records; that Plaintiff’s counsel responded to Defendant’s meet and confer letter within a few days and repeatedly stated that Plaintiff intended to cooperate; that Defendant’s counsel never responded to Plaintiff’s response letter; that Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the discovery; and that Defendant is the party who should be sanctioned for its conduct.

In reply, Defendant contends that the supplemental responses on March 20, 2023 are still deficient as they still failed to provide information requested in Form Interrogatory, No. 2.6.

Here, Plaintiff submits evidence that she served supplemental responses to the discovery at issue on March 18, 2023. (See Monelt Decl., ¶ 12, Exh. 5.) While the motion as to Form Interrogatory, No. 2.6 might be rendered moot under other circumstances, under the circumstances here where the parties were given an opportunity to meet and confer and Defendant made good faith and reasonable attempts to meet and confer, the Court will rule on the motion. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409 [a motion to compel may be heard even if untimely responses are served after a motion to compel responses is filed].)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(a) provides that a party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a further response if an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, or an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify the adequacy of the response, the propriety of any objections, or the failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Form Interrogatory, No. 2.6 requests Plaintiff to 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.

Plaintiff’s supplemental response on March 20, 2023 while the motion was pending states, “Currently employed, working full time. Prior to VincentBenjamin I was working full time as a recruiter in the healthcare industry. Prior to that I was in school working part time at a fitness gym. Plaintiff was terminated after Defendants counsel notified her employer of the pending suit. She is now in the process of interviewing.” (Supplemental Declaration of Megan L. Lapointe, ¶ 6, Ex. F, ROA 89.)

The foregoing response is incomplete, and no objections are asserted, despite Plaintiff’s concerns with responding to this form interrogatory which was approved by the Judicial Council. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “has suffered special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits and/or out of pocket expenses,” as well as “will suffer additional special damages in the form of lost future earnings, benefits, and/or other prospective damages.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 25, 28, 33, 40, 53.) Defendant’s Answer alleges in the Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate her alleged damages. (Answer, ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff’s current and former employment information is permissible under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010. Plaintiff fails to establish the adequacy of the supplemental response or her failure to fully answer Form Interrogatory, No. 2.6. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel as to Form Interrogatory, No. 2.6. Plaintiff to serve a verified, further response within 10 days of the notice of ruling.

Monetary Sanctions.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in the sum of $4,140.00 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300. Defendant contends it was forced to file this Motion because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to act in good faith and plainly refused to supplement Plaintiff’s responses to basic discovery requests which are critical to its ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims.

In Opposition, Plaintiff contends that monetary sanctions should be awarded in Plaintiff’s favor, not Defendant, in the amount of $15,000.00 for Defendant’s counsel’s persisting over objection in seeking the discovery and making this Motion.

It is mandatory for a court to impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, request for admission, or request for production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d) [further responses interrogatories].

“Notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020.)

Additionally, the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, included attorney’s fees incurred as a result of that conduct. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Id.)

Misuses of the discovery process include “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel discovery,” and “[f]ailing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(h) and (i).) It also includes “[p]ersisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible scope of discovery”; [u]sing a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures”; and “[e]mploying a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(a)-(c).)

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(b).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides that “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

Here, Defendant presents evidence that it sent a meet and confer letter explaining why the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2.6 and 9.2 were incomplete and expressed an interest to informally resolve the issues. (See Lapointe Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. D.) Although Plaintiff responded to the letter and stated that she intended to fully cooperate with the discovery process, Plaintiff did not provide a verification and did not agree to supplement her responses. (Id., Exh. E [stating Plaintiff “does not feel comfortable disclosing her current employer because the first thing you will do is harass them with a subpoena” and stated any relevant information can be obtained “with less intrusive methods”; and stating Plaintiff already has the information responsive to Form Interrogatory No. 9.2 since Defendant is “in the process of subpoenaing her medical records.”].)

Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2.6 and 9.2 were incomplete and Plaintiff’s stated reasons for not providing a further response are not valid grounds to refuse to provide the information requested.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel did not meet and confer in good faith in response to Defendant’s meet and confer attempt prior to filing this motion. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $2,850 to be paid within the next 30-days.

In light of the Court’s ruling, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

Defendant to give notice as to this motion.