Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV27304, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27304    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 45

blanca calderon v. regents of the  university of california, et al.

defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents, set two and motion to compel plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories, set one

Date of Hearing:        April 14, 2025                                     Trial Date:       April 11, 2025

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        21STCV27304

Moving Party:            Defendant Regents of The University of California (erroneously sued as Regents of The University of California dba UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center and UCLA Health  

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Blanca Calderon  

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Kupetz Decl.)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Blanca Calderon filed this action on July 26, 2021 against Defendant Regents of The University of California (erroneously sued as Regents of The University of California dba UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center and UCLA Health alleging causes of action for (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12940 (a); (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate in Violation of Government Code § 12940 (m); (3) Failure to Provide Medical Leave in Violation of Government Code §12945.2 (4); Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code § 12940 (n); (5) Failure to Maintain a Workplace Free From Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940 (k); (6) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; and (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA. Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action for wrongful termination has since been dismissed.

The complaint alleges while working as a housekeeper at Defendant’s UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center from 2009 through May 2019, Plaintiff, Blanca Calderon, suffered injury after injury. On May 13, 2019, Plaintiff was terminated.

[Tentative] Ruling

I.                    Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.

II.                  Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED, IN PART.

discussion

I.                    DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Defendant Regents of The University of California moves the court for an order to compel Plaintiff Blanca Calderon to provide responses and documents to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 64-71 and 73-79. Defendant also moves the court for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff personally and her counsel of record in the amount of $3,600.60.

In responding to a request for production of documents, a party must provide one of the following: (1) a legally adequate statement of compliance; (2) a statement of inability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand.¿ (See CCP § 2031.210(a).) Upon receipt of responses to requests for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if they deem that a “statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete”’ a “representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive”; or an “objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP §§ 2031.310(a).) A motion to compel further responses to requests for production must “set forth specific acts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand” and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(1)–(2).)

Defendant maintains Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient responses to the Regents’ RFP, Set Two, Nos. 64-71 and 73-79, which seek information directly relevant to Plaintiff's claims and critical to the Regents’ defenses in this action – namely, documents related to her post-termination earnings and mitigation efforts, records related to her medical and psychiatric or psychological treatments, and any future treatment. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s responses to the demands are vague, evasive, non-responsive and fail to specifically identify which documents are responsive to each request.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff responded with code compliant responses stating she has produced all documents within her possession, custody and/or control responsive to the requests, which she has. Plaintiff maintains the responses are sufficient because it is simply the case that Plaintiff already produced the responsive documents, regardless of whether they had been previously asked for or not. Plaintiff notes the parties also agreed that neither would have to identify bates stamp numbers when responding to the parties’ respective RFPs. Moreover, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s motion must be denied because it is untimely. Plaintiff asserts based on Plaintiff serving her objections on October 21, 2024, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(c) and its language which does not require objections to be verified, Defendant had 45 days from October 21, 2024 to file the present motions whereby Defendant could seek to compel responses. As a result, Defendant should have filed their motion by December 5, 2024. However, Defendant did not seek any extension until nearly three weeks after the deadline.

First addressing the timeliness of the motion, the court finds the motion timely. As noted by Defendant, the clock does not start to run when unverified factual responses and objections are served. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135-36.) According to Plaintiff, they did not send Defendant her verifications until November 13, 2024. (Kahn Decl. ¶9.) As a result, Defendant’s deadline would have been until December 30, 2024. However, Defendant requested an extension on December 19, 2024. (Kupetz Decl. ¶11, Exh. J.) On December 24, 2024, Plaintiff believed Defendant was wrong on the timeline but granted a two-week extension to January 14, 2025. (Kupetz Decl. ¶13, Exh. L.) Defendant filed their motion on January 14, 2025. Accordingly, the motion is timely.

Next, the court finds further responses are required. The court finds the requests are not overbroad, vague nor ambiguous. Plaintiff’s contention that because she has already produced responsive documents and has not stated she is withholding any for any reason a privilege log is required is incorrect. If Plaintiff maintains she is not withholding documents on privilege, then the court finds Plaintiff should withdraw the objection. As for identifying the documents previously produced, while the parties agreed not to require bates stamp numbers when responding to the parties’ respective RFPs, Plaintiff must provide some identifying information in response to the requests for documents.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED.

Sanctions

As for Defendant’s request for sanctions, the court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions as plaintiff’s position was substantially justified.

II.                  DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Defendant Regents of The University of California moves the court for an order to compel Plaintiff Blanca Calderon to provide further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set On, Nos. 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 16. Defendant also moves the court for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff personally and her counsel of record in the amount of $3,600.60.

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; [or] (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.”  (CCP § 2030.300(a).)   Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, or upon a later date agreed to in writing. Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (CCP § 2031.310(c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b)(2).)    

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s responses remain incomplete and evasive and do not respond to the SROGs as asked. Specifically, the responses do not answer the interrogatories “to the extent possible” nor do they confirm that “a reasonable good faith effort was made to obtain the information” requested by the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.220(b) & (c).) For example, Plaintiff provides no specific amounts as to economic damages as required by SROG Nos. 1, 2, and 4, which should be readily available given the time that has passed since the start of this lawsuit. Moreover, SROG Nos. 9-12 seek information as to all of Plaintiff’s medical treatments that she had not previously disclosed. Plaintiff, however, simply cited all prior medical records produced without actually responding to the interrogatory.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s SROGs contain imprecise and ambiguous questions, including contradictory definitions. Because the SROGs are confusing, Plaintiff asserted objections, which she stands by to this day. Despite this, and not waiving such objections, Plaintiff still provided substantive information on top of her objections.

The court first notes Plaintiff also makes the same timeliness argument. As discussed above, the court finds the motion is timely. Next, the court finds the responses insufficient as to SROG No. 1, 2 and 4. Plaintiff maintains the interrogatories did not demand any specific number or calculation but the interrogatories are sufficient to put Plaintiff on notice that Defendant is asking for valuation of damages. Moreover, Plaintiff should be more specific in documents identified.

The court finds the responses sufficient to SROG No. 5 and 6. If Defendant is seeking such specific information, Defendant should have stated list all jobs applied to and so on.

The court finds Plaintiff’s responses to SROG Nos 9 – 12 insufficient. If Plaintiff is making the contention that such information does not exist, she should state so pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the responses are evasive and do not directly answer the interrogatory.  

Lastly, the court finds the response to SROG 16 sufficient. Plaintiff can generally refer to her medical records given the breath of the request.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED in part.

Sanctions

The court DENIES Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.