Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV38848, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV38848, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38848 Hearing Date: February 9, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 9, 2024 TRIAL DATE: September 24, 2024

CASE: Andres Alberto Barrios v. WCS-Valencia, Inc.

CASE NO.: 22STCV38848

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant WCS-Valencia, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Andres Alberto Barrios

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on December 14, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to extensive harassment by his immediate supervisor throughout his employment, and that he was terminated for taking time off from work to recover from a shoulder injury.

Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80, and 83 and otherwise DENIED.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, and for sanctions.

Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.310(b).)

The Declaration of Amanda H. Herron in support of the motion states that the parties met and conferred via telephone concerning the Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s discovery on October 30, 2023, during which time the parties discussed mutually supplementing their respective discovery responses. (Declaration of Amanda H. Herron ISO Mot. ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff, in opposition, claims that this telephone call did not discuss Plaintiff’s responses to this discovery. (Declaration of Ali M. Sachani ISO Opp. ¶ 5.) Attorney Herron next contacted Plaintiff’s counsel via email on November 6, 2023, seeking an extension to the time to compel further responses because she was in the process of drafting a meet and confer letter. (Herron Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. C; Sachani Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel denied the request and refused to discuss the matter further, claiming the deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses had passed. In light of Plaintiff’s refusal to discuss the matter further, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligation.

Timeliness

A motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further responses. (Id.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiff contends that the motion is untimely because it was served more than 45 days after Plaintiff’s responses were served, but neglects to account for statutory extensions of time due to the manner of service. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010.6; 1013.) The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff’s responses were served via email on September 20, 2023. (Herron Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) As the responses were served via electronic service, the 45-day motion to compel deadline was extended by two court days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6.) 45 days plus two court days after September 20, 2023 was Tuesday, November 7, 2023. This motion was filed and served on Tuesday, November 7, 2023. (Proof of Service.) Defendant’s motion is timely.

Analysis

Defendant moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff. Defendant served special interrogatories on Plaintiff on June 29, 2023. (Herron Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were served on September 20, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to each of the 112 interrogatories except Nos. 28, 29, 30, and 70 lack detail and are evasive. Plaintiff declined to address the sufficiency of his responses in his opposition, choosing merely to argue that the motion is untimely as a matter of law. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff is incorrect. As Plaintiff has not addressed his responses, any answers which are not sufficient on their face will merit an order compelling further responses.

Turning now to the merits of the motion, Defendant propounded 112 interrogatories to Plaintiff in this single set of discovery. These interrogatories break down into three categories seeking

(1) facts related to various contentions and claims in the Complaint (Herron Decl. Exh. A. Nos . 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104, 107, and 110);

(2) the identity of individuals named in the pleadings or with knowledge of relevant facts (Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 28-30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69-70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, 109, and 112); and

(3) identification of documents supporting Plaintiff’s contentions (Nos. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90, 93, 96, 99, 102, 105, 108, and 111.)

These categories are distributed across three subject areas:

a) the individual causes of action in the Complaint (Exh. A. Nos. 1-27, 110-112);

b) the factual allegations in the Complaint (Exh. A. Nos. 28-82) and;

c) the relief sought in Plaintiff’s prayer for relief (Exh. A. Nos. 83-109.)

Plaintiff’s response to each of the first category of interrogatories was an identical recitation of the factual contentions offered in the Complaint. (See, e.g., Herron Decl. Exh. B. No. 1.) As the Complaint includes substantial factual contentions in support of the various causes of action asserted, setting forth those contentions in response to an interrogatory seeking factual support for a given cause of action (i.e., Herron Decl. Exh. B. Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 110) is not per se evasive. These answers are likewise responsive to a request for factual support for a specific prayer for relief, as sought in Interrogatories Nos. 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104, and 107. However, where the questions concern the basis for those same factual contentions, a response that merely repeats those same allegations verbatim is patently inadequate. (See Herron Decl. Exh. B. Nos. 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80, and 83.)

As to the second and third categories, Plaintiff responded to each of the second category (except Nos. 28-30 and 70) with an identical list of witnesses: Plaintiff, Chad McFadden, Janet Dent, Martha (Last Name Unknown), Levi Last Name Unknown) and other employees, officers, or agents of defendant whose names and identities are not yet known. (See Herron Decl. Exh. B. Nos. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, 109, and 112.) Plaintiff responded to each question in the third category by referring Defendant to his CRD Complaint and Right to Sue Letter and his accompanying declaration. (Herron Decl. Exh. B. Nos.3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90, 93, 96, 99, 102, 105, 108, and 111.) Defendant contends that these responses are not sufficient because they do not delineate which witnesses or documents possess information that is responsive to each interrogatory. However, Defendant cites no authority requiring that level of detail in responding to these interrogatories which do not themselves call for further detail. Further, in a situation like this where only a handful of witnesses are identified, it cannot be said that Plaintiff’s response is evasive, as where key witnesses are hidden in a lengthy list naming many individuals. Defendant sought individuals and documents in possession of specific categories of information. Plaintiff identified individuals and documents which he contends have that information. These are full and complete responses to the interrogatories as they were propounded. Further responses to these interrogatories are not required.

Sanctions

Both parties seek sanctions in connection with this motion. However, as neither party fully prevailed on the motion to compel further responses, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80, and 83 and otherwise DENIED.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2024 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.