Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV28331, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28331    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 39

Marvin Munoz v. Sause Bros., Inc., et al.

Case No. 21STCV28331

Motions to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiff Marvin Munoz (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Sause Bros., Inc. (“Defendant”) to Form Interrogatories—General, Set One (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”).  Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks further responses to the following discovery:

            1.         FROG Numbers 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, and 12.3

            2.         SROG Numbers 1, 7, 13-17, 19-29, 31-32, 34-39

            3.         RPD Numbers 4-5, 6, 12-13, 16-19, 23, 25-26, 29, 33-34, 37, 39, 50, 52-60, 62-82, 86-87

The Court ordered the parties to meet-and-confer to attempt to resolve the disputes.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated February 6, 2023.)  At the hearing on March 17, 2023, “[t]he parties stipulated that Defendant shall provide supplemental responses on or before April 7, 2023.”  (Court’s Minute Order, dated March 17, 2023.)  However, Defendant’s counsel provided no supplemental responses.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated April 14, 2023.)  A different attorney appeared at the subsequent hearing and, contrary to her colleague’s stipulation, stated that “the initial responses were sufficient and that further responses were not necessary.”  (Ibid.)  Therefore, the Court continued the hearing yet again and ordered the parties to meet-and-confer.

            A.        Motion to Compel Further Responses to the FROGs    

            The parties agree that this motion has been resolved.  Therefore, the Court takes the motion off-calendar as moot.  This order is without prejudice to re-setting the motion if necessary.

            B.        Motion to Compel Further Responses to the SROGs

            The parties resolved certain SROGs, but the Court must decide the motion with respect to other SROGs.  The Court rules as follows:

            SROG #7 – Granted in part; denied in part.  The Court orders Defendant to provide a supplemental response identifying every fact based upon which Plaintiff was terminated, if he was terminated foe good cause.  Plaintiff’s remedy for Defendant’s failure to do so is to file a motion in limine to exclude Defendant from introducing evidence at trial that was not disclosed during discovery, in violation of this order.  (Mitchell v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 269, 272.) 

            SROG #13 – Granted.  Although a party may reference documents in lieu of preparing a summary from other documents, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, there are two problems with Defendant’s response.  First, the parties dispute whether the referenced documents clearly delineate the duties at issue.  Second, the response does not make clear that the documents reflect “all duties” of the position.  Therefore, the motion is granted. 

            SROG #14 – Denied.  The response makes clear that “all” duties of the position are exempt.  The Court’s ruling on SROG #13 further clarifies this issue.

            SROG #15 – Denied.  The response is sufficient in light of the Court’s ruling on SROG #13.

            SROG #16 – Denied.  The response makes clear that “all” duties of the position are exempt.  The Court’s ruling on SROG #13 further clarifies this issue.

            SROG #17 – Denied.  The response is sufficient in light of the Court’s ruling on SROG #13.

            SROG #19 – Denied.  The response is sufficient.  Plaintiff argues that the response does not list “specific duties,” but the SROG did not require Defendant to do so.  The SROG simply asked for all “facts” supporting Defendant’s contention that the position is exempt.

            SROG #20 – Granted per Defendant’s stipulation.  Where a plaintiff alleges Labor Code violations due to company-wide policies that impacted its California employees, the plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery on all California employees “as a first step to identifying other aggrieved employees and obtaining admissible evidence of the violations and policies alleged in the complaint.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 543.)  Accordingly, Defendant must respond to discovery requests seeking information about other employees in California.  However, Defendant is not required to reveal the identities of employees without providing the employees notice and an opportunity to opt out of the disclosure of their identities and contact information, under Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554.

            SROG #21 – See ruling on SROG #20.    

            SROG #22 – Denied.  The SROG seeks information concerning “the average shift” of a tankerman employed by Defendant.  This is vague.  Regardless, Defendant responded to Form Interrogatory—Employment #217.1: “Plaintiff’s shifts, in addition to all tankermen’s shifts, typically average 12 hours.”  This is sufficient.

            SROG #23 – Denied.  Defendant’s response is code-compliant, as it identifies when it was unsafe to change the VAS canisters, i.e., when it was unsafe to do so.  To the extent Plaintiff seeks different information, the SROG is vague.

            SROG #24 – Granted.  The SROG asks whether Defendant ever bypassed the carbon dioxide sensors to complete cargo transfers.  Defendant states: “Defendant has no knowledge of this ever happening during the time period covered by Plaintiff’s claims.”  The response itself is sufficient.  Defendant was required only to provide an answer “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subds. (a), (b).)  Defendant did so in this case.  Defendant’s response is the equivalent of “Defendant never bypassed the carbon dioxide sensors to complete cargo transfers, to the best of its knowledge.”  However, Defendant places a time limitation on the response which was not present in the SROG.  Therefore, the Court orders a further response without a time limitation.

            SROG #25 – Denied.  Defendant has provided a verified response to Form Interrogatory #217.1 regarding Request for Admission #21 stating: “The VAS cannister swap is not an illegal practice.”  This is sufficient.

            SROG #26 – Granted.  Defendant has provided a verified response to Form Interrogatory #217.1 regarding Request for Admission #21 stating: “The VAS cannister swap is not an illegal practice.  It is unsafe only in certain circumstances.”  Defendant must identify the circumstances in which it is unsafe to do so.

            SROG #28 – See ruling on SROG #20.

            SROG #29 – See ruling on SROG #20. 

            C.        Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPDs

            RPD #18 – Granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #23 – Granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #26 – Granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #29 – Based upon Plaintiff’s stipulation to remove the word “unwarranted” from the request, granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #33 – Denied.  This request is overly broad and burdensome, even with Plaintiff’s proposed time limitation.

            RPD #34 – Denied.  This request is overly broad and burdensome, even with Plaintiff’s proposed time limitation.

            RPD #37 – Granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #39 – Granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #52 through RPD #55 – See Court’s ruling on SROG #20.

            RPD #68 through RPD #72 – Granted, to the extent Defendant has not produced the documents already.

            RPD #73 – Denied.

            RPD #74 – See Court’s ruling on SROG #20.

            RPD #75 – Denied.

            RPD #76 – Denied.

            RPD #77 – Denied.

            RPD #78 – See Court’s ruling on SROG #20.

            RPD #79 – Denied.

            RPD #80 – Denied. 

            RPD  #81 – Denied.

            D.        Sanctions

            The Court denies all requests for sanctions.  Both parties are responsible for this discovery dispute, which should have been resolved without court intervention.  Therefore, an award of sanctions to either side would be unjust. 

            E.         Conclusion and Order

            The Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court takes Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the FROGs off-calendar as moot.

            2.         The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to the RPDs and SROGs. 

            3.         Defendant shall provide further responses to requests subject to Belaire-West notices within 120 days.

            4.         Defendant shall provide further responses to other requests within thirty (30) days.

            5.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.