Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2021-01229503, Date: 2023-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Matthew Bruers’ motions to compel defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. [“BBU”] to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as further set forth below.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.310, 2031.310 [authorizing motions].)

Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One:

Form Interrogatory Nos. 204.6, 204.7, and 216.1: Granted.  Defendant BBU shall provide full, complete, and verified further responses, without objection, within 15 days.  Any exercise of the option to produce writings (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(3)) shall comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230 [“This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained”].

Form Interrogatory No. 209.2: Granted in part.  Defendant BBU shall provide full, complete, and verified further responses, without objection, within 15 days, limited as follows: (1) actions involving

the Los Alamitos facility filed within five years prior to 11-2-21; (2) actions alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.  (See Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 114 “me-too” evidence]; Hatai v. Department of Transportation (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1297–1298, disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97 [“me too” evidence does not include others outside of plaintiff’s protected class].)

Special Interrogatories, Set Two:

Special Interrogatory Nos. 10, 13: Denied, without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to propound  more specific interrogatories on this subject.  These Special Interrogatories are impermissibly compound.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (f).)

Special Interrogatory Nos. 11, 36-58: Granted.  Defendant BBU shall provide full, complete, and verified further responses, without objection, within 15 days.  The court finds that moving party’s declaration of necessity is sufficient.  (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.050.)

Special Interrogatory No. 14: Granted in part. Defendant BBU shall provide full, complete, and verified further responses, without objection, within 15 days, limited as follows: (1) actions involving

the Los Alamitos facility filed within five years prior to 11-2-21; (2) actions alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.

Request for Production of Documents, Set One:

This motion is granted in its entirety, as defendant’s responses were untimely.  Defendant BBU shall provide full, complete, and verified further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request Nos. 28, 29, 32, 55, 56, and 87, without objection, and shall produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, and/or control, without objection, within 15 days.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 20300.300, subd. (a) [untimely response waives right to object, absent noticed motion for relief from waiver]; Sosa Decl., ¶¶ 4 and 5, and Exs. 6 and 7 thereto.) 

Sanctions:

Sanctions are imposed against defendant BBU in the amount of $4,134.00, payable to counsel for moving party within 30 days.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff shall give notice on all motions.