Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00296, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00296    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 July 18, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV00296

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Carlos Matta v. Metro Services Group, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Carlos Matta 

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants, Metro Services Group and Justine Herrera

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        April 14, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One

                                                (2)  Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

¿

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED in part, but limit to the past 5 years rather than 10

                                                (2) MOOTED

(3) ARGUE.

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff, Carlos Matta (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Metro Service Group, Justine Herrera, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a); (2) Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(m); (3) Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(n); (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment, or Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k); (5) Harassment in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(j); (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Failure to Provide Rest Periods.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff notes that it served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff further notes that on November 27, 2023, Defendant served its response to Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery.

On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff contends that it served Defendant with a meet and confer letter in regard to Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery. Further, on January 26, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with a meet and confer letter. Then, on February 8, 2024, Defendant served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery. On that same day, Plaintiff notes that it sent a second meet and confer letter on Defendant.

After multiple extensions, on April 26, 2024, Plaintiff contends that Defendant sent another letter responding to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. However, instead of providing substantive responses, Plaintiff notes that Defendant stated that it will supplement its responses. Further, on April 30, 2024, Plaintiff sent an email inquiring as to when Defendant would provide supplemental responses. However, at the time of filing, the motion, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff has not received responses. As such, Plaintiff has brought these motions to compel further responses to his first set of discovery.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed three motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents. On July 5, 2024 Defendants, Metro Services Group and Justine Herrera (collectively “Defendants”) filed an opposition brief. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed reply briefs.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411

            Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular 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.”  Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)    

B.     Discussion

Meet and Confer Standard

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently attempted to meet and confer prior to the filing of the motions to compel.

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

FROG No. 209.2: This interrogatory seeks Defendant to provide information as whether in the past 10 years, if any employee filed a civil action against the employer regarding his or her employment, and subsequently seeks information if so.

            In opposition, Defendant objected on the grounds that the request was overbroad in time and scope and unduly burdensome, seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and/or work product doctrine, and that it seeks information protected from disclosure by a constitutional, statutory, or common law privacy interest of third persons including Defendant’s current or former employees. However, Defendant also noted that it was willing to provide the information if the request was limited to the past five (5) years, and information as to disability discrimination and harassment based on disability based upon the actions of the same alleged harassers at issue in the present case and/or at the same building Plaintiff worked in.

            The Court certainly believes that the information sought by form interrogatory No. 209.2 is relevant to identify potential witnesses or showing motive. See Pinter-Brown v. Regents of University of California¿(2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, 96 [“‘me too’ evidence can be admissible to show intent or motive, which could establish that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext. [Citation.]”). Nonetheless, the Court agrees with Defendant that the interrogatory is overbroad. Accordingly, the Court limits the response to actions filed in California within the last five years involving the same types of claims alleged in the Complaint in the instant action.¿ 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory no. 209.2 is GRANTED subject to the limitations above.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

            Next, Plaintiff is seeking further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 11-22. As to each of the requests below, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ response was that it would produce all non-privileged documents from which the information requested could  be derived. However, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has not produced any documents, nor has it specified the writings from which the answer may be derived.   

            In Defendant’s opposition brief, it indicates that since Plaintiff’s filing, it has served the requested supplemental responses to special interrogatories 17-20 and has also produced the responsive documents pursuant to the stipulated protective order, and has provided supplemental responses to identify the responsive documents in its interrogatory responses as to special interrogatories nos. 11-16 and 21-22. As such, Defendant argues that the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is moot.

            The Court finds that these supplemental responses and production MOOT the substantive portion of the Plaintiff’s motion, but do not moot monetary sanctions.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff is also seeking further responses from Defendant for Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 2, 9, 16, 17, 19-36 on the grounds that the information sought is relevant, not privileged, is necessary for the assessment of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, and the requested information is necessary for preparation of the suit for settlement and/or trial.

In opposition, Defendants contend that the motion is moot at least in part because it produced documents in response to request nos. 1-2, 9, 17, and 27-28. Further, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is also seeking a Court order compelling Defendant to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 17 and 24, but that documents responsive to those requests have already been produced and no documents were withheld on the basis of privilege. The parties are to discuss at oral argument whether this issue has been resolved between them. Additionally, Defendant contends that its responses to Requests Nos. 16, 19-23, 25-26, and 31-36 are code-compliant and Defendant has already produced responsive documents.

This Court is also confused by this motion in relation to the responses previously provided. It appears that Plaintiff’s main issue with the responses was that no privilege log was provided. This Court notes that certainly with the breadth of information, and the privilege-based objections, a privilege log should be provided by Defendant. The parties are required to discuss the issue of a privilege log and what has already been produced by Defendant during oral argument at the hearing.

Defendant also argues, in its opposition, that its responses to Request Nos. 29 and 30 are code compliant as they seek performance evaluations of Plaintiff and documents related to promotions received by Plaintiff. In response, Defendant stated it was “unable to comply with this request as it does not have nonprivileged responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control.” Defendant further states that responsive documents do not exist. However, this Court is confused by the privilege objection.  If responsive documents exist, but are privileged, could they not be produced subject to a protective order? Defendant should clarify this point on oral argument.