Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2023-00009697-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00009697-CU-OE-CTL JUAREZ VS KELLY OPERATIONS GROUP LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion (ROA 30) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.

As to Special Interrogatory Nos. 72, 99, 107, 115, 121, and 131, the motion is denied. Defendant has provided a complete response and no further response is warranted. Plaintiffs' attempts to dispute the substance of these responses – asserting, despite Defendant's verified statements to the contrary, that Defendant was an employer of Plaintiffs – is not appropriate for the court to resolve on a discovery motion.

As to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 9-17, 22, 36, 45, 87, 89, and 117, the motion is granted. Defendant responded to these interrogatories with objections only and no opposition was filed on behalf of Defendant to defend the objections. The discovery requests appear to be appropriate and the objections do not have merit. For example, with regard to Special Interrogatory No. 11, 'State how many CLASS MEMBERS are employed by YOU at the present time,' Defendant responded with objections only. To the extent that it is Defendant's position in this case that it is not an employer of any member of the putative class, Plaintiff is entitled to a verified response from Defendant to that effect.

Other Special Interrogatories ask for basic information, such as the number of restaurants and employees Defendant has in California, and are met with boilerplate objections that are meritless for the same reason.

Accordingly, Defendant is to serve verified further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 9-17, 22, 36, 45, 87, 89, and 117 on or before July 12, 2024.

Plaintiffs' request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel is denied. Plaintiffs were only partially meritorious on their motion, and Defendant did not oppose the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d).) Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082022  2