Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 22STCV29404, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV29404, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29404 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-30-24

Case: 22STCV29404

Trial Date: Not Set

FURTHER FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Gil Walton

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Gil Walton was an employee of Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al. (Kaiser), and took family and medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to care for a spouse, third party Marguerite Walton, with cancer. Marguerite was also being treated by the Kaiser defendants which led admission for surgery on April 14, 2021, and the beginning of the leave period. When Walton returned to work “in July” 2021, with a request for special accommodation to help Marguerite with post-operative treatment, including chemotherapy, Walton contends improper treatment. Walton was eventually terminated on February 17, 2022.

On September 9, and October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint and First Amended Complaint for (1) Discrimination on the Basis of Association with a Person with a Disability and/or Medical Condition in Violation Of FEHA; (2) Retaliation on the Basis of Association with a Person with a Disability and/or Medical Condition In Violation of FEHA; (3) Discrimination on the Basis of Taking CFRA Leave In Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation for Taking CFRA Leave in Violation of FEHA; (5) Whistle-Blower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (6) Failure To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation Of FEHA; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy; (9) Defamation; and, (10) Coerced Self-Defamation.

RULING: Continued or Submitted Depending on Status of Verification of Amended Responses.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser) moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Employment Law (set one), numbers 200.2, 200.3, 200.4, 200.5, 202.2, 204.2, 204.6, 207.2, 209.1, 210.2, 210.3, 215.1, and 215.2, from Plaintiff Gil Walton. The motion is based on a promise to provide further response to said items, which remain outstanding at the time of the filing of the motion. Kaiser also maintains the responses remain deficient, thereby supporting an order compelling further responses without boilerplate objections. Plaintiff in opposition represents supplemental responses were provided thereby rending the subject motion moot. Regardless, Plaintiff maintains the original responses were complete and non-evasive, while also characterizing the “minutiae of information” sought as “trivial” in that the challenged items are “non-sensical” and without relevance to the instant action. Kaiser in reply contends the motion is not moot, in that the amended responses are unverified, and therefore constitute a non-response. Kaiser also maintains the relevance and propriety of the items. Kaiser reiterates the request for sanctions, due to the “gamesmanship” of Plaintiff.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300.”

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

At the time of the tentative ruling publication order, the court cannot determine whether verified amended responses were in fact served [Declaration of Octovio Velarde], and accepts the representation of moving counsel as to the lack of any verified responses. The court therefore declines to declare the motion moot in any form without proof of verified responses.

Because of the uncertainty created by the lack of verifications, the court also declines to either rule on the current verified responses or consider the amended responses upon proof of verification. The court will therefore either continue the hearing to one of the two new other scheduled hearing dates on September 12 or 23, 2024, or take the matter under submission depending on which position Plaintiff elects to proceed with—the original responses or verified amended responses. Plaintiff may present proof of verification at the time of the hearing.

Motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories and Documents scheduled for September 12 and 23, 2024.

Kaiser to provide notice.