Case Number: BC672809 Hearing Date: May 14, 2018 Dept: 32

rosa livier alvara,

Plaintiff,

v.

los angeles unified school district,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC 672809

Hearing Date: May 14, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel further responses to:

(1) Form Interrogatories, set one

(2) special interrogatories, set one

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rosa Alvara (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was discriminated and retaliated against by her previous employer Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant.”) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant refused to accept her permissive leave paperwork, refused to acknowledge Plaintiff’s disability extension and terminated Plaintiff for exercising her right to request accommodations. (FAC ¶32.) Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (6) declaratory judgment; and (7) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records.

DISCUSSION

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 an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”). (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

A. Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2030.300(b).) On or about March 9, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter, by mail and email, to Defendant’s counsel. (Issac Decl. ¶4, Exh 3-4.) On March 13, 2018, Defendant’s counsel email a response to the letter. (Id. ¶5; Exh. 5-6.) On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed a second meet and confer letter. (Id. ¶7, 8; Exh. 9.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith because Plaintiff’s counsel did not accept the Defendant’s counsel’s offer to limit the scope of the requests. However, the Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred on both the Form Interrogatory and Special Interrogatories at issue in the instant motions. Plaintiff served the notices for both motions on March 19, 2018, the motion to compel deadline. (Isaac Decl. ¶10.)

B. Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory (“FI”) No. 209.2

Defendant contends it served supplemental responses to the Form Interrogatory in question on April 30, 2018 and as such, the motion is moot. When a party serves supplemental responses after a motion to compel further responses has been filed, a court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances present, such as denying the motion as moot. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) However, Defendant’s responses were not served until after this motion was filed and Plaintiff incurred expenses in the form of attorney’s fees and costs.

As such, the motion is GRANTED and the Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $ 1,680 (4 hours at a rate of $405/hour and $60 filing fee) in reasonable attorney fees and costs against the Defendant, payable no later than 30 days of notice of this order to the Plaintiff’s Counsel, the Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi. (CCP § 2033.290(d).)

C. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 81 and 82

Defendant objects to these requests on the grounds that the interrogatories are irrelevant, overly broad and burdensome. SIs Nos. 81 and 82 request information about all vacant job positions with Defendant from June 2015 to the present, at or below Plaintiff’s most recent pay grade. Plaintiff contends the Defendant’s objections lack merit and contend that the information regarding vacant job positions during the time frame will provide evidence as to what positions Plaintiff could have been placed for determining whether Defendant engaged in the good faith interactive process. Defendant attempts to justify the objection with the proposition that Plaintiff must concede that she could not perform the essential functions of her job in order for the issue of reassignment to a vacant position for which she is qualified to be relevant. (See Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 377.) The Court disagrees and finds this request is not so remote as to be irrelevant.

Defendant further objects on the grounds that the requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information regarding every vacancy at or below Plaintiff’s pay grade regardless of whether Plaintiff is qualified to do those jobs. Objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417.) Plaintiff is not asking Defendants to identify all jobs Plaintiff is qualified for, but instead all jobs that were available from June 2015 to present at or below Plaintiff’s most recent pay grade. As such, the Court finds the requests are not overly broad. Defendant has failed to justify the objection that the requests are unduly burdensome by not providing sufficient evidence detailing the amount of work involved. The Court finds Bejarano Decl. Exh. C is not persuasive that this task would be unduly burdensome.

As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to SI Nos. 81 and 82 is GRANTED. The Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $ 1,680 (4 hours at a rate of $405/hour and $60 filing fee) in reasonable attorney fees and costs against the Defendant, payable no later than 30 days of notice of this order to the Plaintiff’s Counsel, the Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi. (CCP § 2033.290(d).)