Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV29372, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29372    Hearing Date: March 28, 2025    Dept: 45

DANNY ALLEN SILVA vs AITAL CUSTOM GLASS & MIRROR, INC., et al.

plaintiff danny allen silva’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories

Date of Hearing:        March 28, 2025                                              Trial Date:       July 7, 2025

Department:              45                                                                    Case No.:        21STCV29372

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Danny Allen Silva

Responding Party:     No opposition  

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Singer Decl. ¶9.)

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an employment dispute. Plaintiff Danny Allen Silva filed this action on August 10, 2021 against Defendants Aital Custom Glass & Mirror, Inc. (“Aital”), Larry Shar (“Shar”), and Kevin Jong (“Jong”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Unlawful Employment Harassment; (2) Unlawful Employment Discrimination; (3) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (4) Unlawful Retaliation; and (5) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and/or Retaliation. As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff began his employment as a glazier with Defendants on December 9, 2019. Defendants Shar, the owner and CEO of Aital, and Jong, the general manager of Aital, allegedly singled Plaintiff out and mocked him on the basis of him being a Mexican-American who lacks the ability to speak Spanish. Plaintiff allegedly received treatment and reprimanding to a greater degree than employees of Mexican descent who could speak Spanish. Defendants terminated Plaintiff on April 3, 2020 due to Plaintiff’s ethnicity, race, inability to speak Spanish, complaints of unlawful business practices and unsafe working conditions, and requests for accommodations following the onset of Covid-19.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Danny Allen Silva’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

discussion

Plaintiff Silva moves the court for an order compelling Defendant Aital Custom Glass & Mirror, Inc. to serve further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory 17.1. Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to serve proper responses to these interrogatories. Plaintiff also moves for attorney fees against Defendant Aital and/or its attorney of record in the amount of $1,811.65 for having to bring the instant motion.

The propounding party may file motions to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes the responses received are (1) evasive, (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or overly general. (CCP §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) In response to a motion to compel further responses, the respondent bears the burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) 

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory, No. 17.1. As noted by Plaintiff, Form Interrogatory 17.1 requires that the responding party provide facts, witnesses, and documents to corresponding requests for admissions that are not unqualified admissions. However, in each of Defendant’s response, Plaintiff contends Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive responses without justification. For example, for each response to 17.1(c), Defendant fails to provide the address or telephone number for the persons listed. For No. 17.1(d), Defendant simply states “multiple documents” which is evasive and incomplete. Defendant must fully respond to each category under 17.1 including stating all facts on which they base their response, the address and contact information for the names provided and identify all documents.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Aital and/or its attorney of record in the amount of $1,811.65. Plaintiff argues Defendant has engaged in conduct constituting misuse of the discovery process because Defendant failed to serve code-compliant response to Form Interrogatory 17.1. Moreover, when Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant regarding the deficient discovery responses, Counsel for Defendant merely responded “I Defer to counsel. LOL” (Singer Decl. Exh. 6.)

The motion is unopposed. The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions but in the reduced amount of $1500, given the basic nature of this motion.  Sanctions are payable within 30 days.