Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2020-01164125, Date: 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Discovery Protective Orders

Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s (“Starbucks”) motion for a Protective Order excusing Starbucks from answering Special Interrogatory No. 111 through Special Interrogatory No. 274 propounded by Plaintiff Richard Jones in Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) to Starbucks is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.090 states, in pertinent part: “(a) When interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. [¶] (b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: [¶] (1) That the set of interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be answered. [¶] (2) That, contrary to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted. . .”

Section 2030.040, subdivision (a) states: “(a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2030.090, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following: [¶] (1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case. [¶] (2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition. [¶] (3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.”

Section 2030.040, subdivision (b) states: “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”

Plaintiff has propounded a total of 300 special interrogatories on Starbucks. (Baxter Decl., ¶ 5.) Specifically, on August 5, 2022, Plaintiff propounded his Special Interrogatories (Set One) which consisted of 110 special interrogatories. (Baxter Decl., ¶ 4.) After Starbucks responded to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), on March 7, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories (Set Two) which contain 190 additional special interrogatories. (Baxter Decl., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has the burden of justifying the number of special interrogatories served on Starbucks. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.040(b).) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion and therefore not met his burden of justifying the number of special interrogatories served on Starbucks.

The case is not complex. It involves just one plaintiff and one defendant and Plaintiff’s claimed medical specials are approximately $11,000. Plaintiff has noticed three depositions; the deposition of a former partner (employee) of Starbucks, the deposition of a current partner (employee) of Starbucks, and the deposition of a Person Most Qualified for Starbucks, which are a less burdensome and more convenient source for Plaintiff to obtain discovery without forcing Starbucks to incur unnecessary additional expense by responding to 190 additional special interrogatories.

Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists for granting the motion for a protective order and excusing Starbucks from answering Special Interrogatory No. 111 through Special Interrogatory No. 274 propounded by Plaintiff his Special Interrogatories (Set Two).

Defendant to give notice.