Case Name: Alexis Winter v. Norcal-CB-First St., Inc. dba Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, et al.
Case No.: 2016-CV-291979

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions by Defendant Norcal CB-First Street, Inc. dba Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a slip and fall case. On February 28, 2014, plaintiff Alexis Winter (“Plaintiff”) was a patron at a café commonly known as the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf when she fell and suffered severe injuries while using the restroom. (First Amended Complaint [“FAC”] at ¶ 10.) The condition of the floor in the restroom caused Plaintiff to fall. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants occupied and controlled the subject premises. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 17.) Plaintiff claims defendants were negligent by failing to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. (Id. at ¶ 18.)

The operative FAC alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

Discovery Dispute

On October 15, 2018, defendant Norcal CB-First Street, Inc., dba Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with special interrogatories (set two) (“SI”) and requests for production of documents (set three) (“RPD”). (Porter Decl. at ¶ 2, Exs. A-B.) Following an extension, Plaintiff served discovery answers interposing objections with factual responses. (Id. at ¶ 3, Ex. C.)

On December 26, 2018, Defendant, through its counsel, sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s attorney addressing the discovery responses. (Porter Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex. D.) In doing so, Defendant claimed the answers were inadequate and the objections were meritless and thus requested that Plaintiff serve supplemental SI and RPD responses. (Ibid.)

On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney responded with a letter standing by some of the responses and objections while offering to amend some of the SI responses. (Porter Decl. at ¶ 8, Ex. G.) Plaintiff thereafter served amended SI responses again interposing objections with factual answers. (Id. at Ex. J.) Plaintiff did not serve any amended RPD responses. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

On February 28, 2019, Defense counsel sent another meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s attorney addressing the deficiencies in the discovery responses and amended responses. (Porter Decl. at ¶ 13, Ex. K.) In doing so, Defendant requested that Plaintiff serve supplemental discovery responses on or before March 15, 2019. (Ibid.) On that day, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to defense counsel further addressing the discovery responses and amended responses. (Id. at Ex. L.) The parties continued their meet and confer efforts via email but were unable to informally resolve this discovery dispute. (Kaufman Decl. at Exs. B-C.) Defendant therefore seeks intervention from the Court.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to SI and RPD because the responses are inadequate and the objections raised lack merit. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 2031.310.) Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions in conjunction with the motion. Plaintiff filed written opposition to the motion. Defendant filed reply papers. Trial is set for July 22, 2019.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to SI

Defendant moves to compel a further response to SI Nos. 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 84, 86, 87, 119, and 138 because the answers are inadequate and the objections are meritless.

Improper Motion

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant improperly combined its motion to compel further responses to SI and RPD into a single motion. Plaintiff, relying on California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) asserts that any such motion to compel either interrogatories or inspection demands shall each be accompanied by a separate statement. Defendant here has filed one motion incorporating both SI and RPD along with a single separate statement. In doing so, Plaintiff claims that Defendant has taken advantage of the Santa Clara Superior Court Fee Schedule by paying a single fee of $60 for this one motion. Plaintiff’s point is well-taken. Plaintiff however has not cited legal authority stating that such a procedural violation constitutes a basis to deny the motion. In addition, both parties have briefed the substantive issues relative to both motions and, with a trial date approaching, the Court finds that judicial economy would be better served by addressing the motions at this time. Defendant is admonished to comply with court rules and procedures with respect to future filings.

Meet and Confer

In opposition, Plaintiff also argues that Defendant did not adequately meet and confer before filing the motion.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and inspection demands shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than argument with opposing counsel. (Townsend v. Super. Ct. (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, 1439 (Townsend).) It requires that the parties present the merits of their respective positions with candor, specificity, and support. (Ibid.) The level of effort at informal resolution that satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends upon the circumstances of the case. (Obregon v. Super. Ct. (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431 (Obregon).) Where there has been a failure to meet and confer, “[j]udges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances.” (Ibid.) The court’s discretion includes the possibility of denying discovery altogether absent efforts to meet and confer. (See Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439; Obregon v. Super. Ct., supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434 [court has discretion to deny discovery absent meet and confer].)

Plaintiff here argues that Defendant did not complete the meet and confer process before filing the motion. Plaintiff contends that Defendant filed the motion prematurely as she intended to serve amended responses to some of the outstanding discovery requests. Despite these arguments, the Court is satisfied with Defendant’s efforts to meet and confer which included several letters addressing the subject discovery responses and additional contacts made with Plaintiff’s counsel via email. Accordingly, the Court will address the merits of the motions.

Legal Standard

A responding party must provide non-evasive answers to interrogatories that are “as complete and straightforward…to the extent possible,” and, if after a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information they still cannot respond fully to an interrogatory, the responding party must so state in its response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) If the responding party provides incomplete or evasive answers, or objections without merit, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) If a timely motion to compel answers is filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (See Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221 (Coy).)

SI No. 67

SI No. 67 asks Plaintiff to identify the neurologist she visited in New York, who declined taking her on as a patient, as described in her deposition. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates her right to privacy. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. (See Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221 [if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection]; see also Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting discovery].)
‘
Plaintiff also provides a factual answer in her amended response. She states, after a reasonable and diligent search, the neurologist was located near Broadway Street in New York City that she was referred to via her insurance website.
This is not a code compliant response. “Answers must be complete and responsive.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo).) “If only partial answers can be supplied, the answers should reveal all information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he (or she) should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He (or she) cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his (or her) control.” (Id. at p. 782.) At a minimum, Plaintiff should state she made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in the interrogatory based upon sources under her control. If, after investigating sources under her control, she is unable to further answer the question, she should so state in an objection-free code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 67 is GRANTED.

SI No. 70

SI No. 70 asks Plaintiff to identify all chiropractors she received treatment from in the past 10 years. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates her right to privacy. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also refers Defendant to her medical records and deposition volumes. However, if the question requires reference to some other document, it should be identified and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 783-784.) This portion of Plaintiff’s factual response falls short as she fails to summarize the contents of these documents.

In addition, Plaintiff responds by stating, after a reasonable and diligent search, that she does not recall the names of her chiropractors. Plaintiff then states that she saw two chiropractors in New York and another one in Delaware. Again, Plaintiff should state she made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in the interrogatory based upon sources under her control. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that she is unable to provide further information because she has no records of these visits and no resource where she can access this information. (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 8.) If that is true, Plaintiff should so state in an objection-free code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 70 is GRANTED.

SI No. 71

SI No. 71 asks Plaintiff to identify all acupuncturists she received treatment from in the past 10 years. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates her right to privacy. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also refers Defendant to her medical records and deposition volumes. However, if the question requires reference to some other document, it should be identified and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at pp. 783-784.) This portion of Plaintiff’s factual response falls short as she fails to summarize the contents of these documents.

In addition, Plaintiff responds by stating, after a reasonable and diligent search, that she does not recall the names of her acupuncturist who treated her. Plaintiff recalls only that she saw an acupuncturist in New Castle, Delaware. Again, Plaintiff should state she made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in the interrogatory based upon sources under her control. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that she looked for documents and investigated sources but could not find any because she is no longer insured by the insurance provider connected to this treatment. (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 13.) If that is true, Plaintiff should so state in an objection-free code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 71 is GRANTED.

SI No. 73

SI No. 73 asks Plaintiff to identify the surgeon and facility relating to her septoplasty. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on the ground that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This objection is not justified in opposition and thus the objection is overruled.

Plaintiff also objects on the basis that the interrogatory violates her right to privacy. Plaintiff however appears to waive her privacy objection as she states that no information has been withheld pursuant to objection or privilege. (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 16.) The privacy objection therefore is overruled.

Finally, Plaintiff responds by stating, after a reasonable and diligent search, that the surgery occurred in Rochester and the doctor was located in Rochester. Again, Plaintiff should state she made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in the interrogatory based upon sources under her control. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that she looked for documents and investigated sources but could not find any because she is no longer insured by the insurance provider connected to this treatment. (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 16.) If that is true, Plaintiff should so state in an objection-free code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 73 is GRANTED.

SI Nos. 75-76

SI Nos. 75 and 76 ask Plaintiff to identify the facility and medical provider of her 2013 rotator cuff surgery. Plaintiff objects on the ground that these interrogatories are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff further objects to these interrogatories on the ground that they violate her right to privacy.

The right to privacy protects an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370 (Pioneer).) It is well-established that the right to privacy extends to an individual’s medical history and records. (See Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 679.)

Where a serious invasion of the right to privacy is shown, the proponent of the discovery must demonstrate that the information sought is “directly relevant” to a claim or defense, and “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Britt v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859.) Once direct relevance has been demonstrated, the proponent of discovery must show that the information sought is not available through less intrusive means. (Allen v. Super. Ct. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.) The Court must then carefully balance the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right of civil litigants to discover facts, on the other. (Pioneer, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 371.)

Defendant argues the medical procedure in 2013 occurred subsequent to a slip and fall and resulted in a lawsuit. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff now struggles with balance and consistently slips and falls. (See Reply at p. 5.) Defendant thus asserts that Plaintiff’s penchant for failing may be due to a prior condition and thus discovery with respect to her 2013 rotator cuff surgery is relevant to this lawsuit.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues she is not making any claim related to shoulder issues and thus her prior treatment remains private. However, the identification of the facility and medical provider as requested in these interrogatories would not constitute a substantial intrusion into her privacy. The information sought concerns preliminary information that would not reveal the details of any medical treatment. Therefore, any intrusion would be minimal. Thus, the privacy objection is overruled.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 75-76 is GRANTED.

SI No. 79

SI No. 79 asks Plaintiff to identify any and all medical providers who have ever prescribed Fioricet to her. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates her right to privacy. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also provides the following factual response: “After a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiff identifies Noel Smith, M.D. and a doctor located in Ocean City, New Jersey.” (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 21.) While Plaintiff identifies one medical provider, she fails to supply the name of the doctor located in Ocean City, New Jersey. Again, Plaintiff should state she made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in the interrogatory based upon sources under her control. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that she looked for documents and investigated sources but could not find any additional information because she is no longer insured by the insurance provider connected to this treatment. (Id. at pp. 22-23.) If that is true, Plaintiff should so state in an objection-free code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 79 is GRANTED.

SI No. 80

SI No. 80 asks Plaintiff to identify any and all medical providers she has ever seen for complaints regarding headaches. Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates her right to privacy. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also provides a factual response identifying the names of five different medical providers. Having done so, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 80 is DENIED.

SI No. 84

SI No. 84 asks Plaintiff to identify any ear nose and throat specialists she has visited in the past 10 years. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, harassing, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also objects on the ground that the interrogatory violates her right to privacy. In doing so, Plaintiff argues that prior medical treatment regarding her nose constitutes private information. The interrogatory however is broader as it seeks information also from nose and throat specialists. Moreover, the identity of any ear, nose, and throat specialist would not constitute any substantial intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy or disclose details of any medical treatment. Therefore, the privacy objection is overruled.

Finally, Plaintiff provides the following factual response: “After a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiff identifies a doctor in Rochester, NY and a Dr. Ng. in Delaware.” (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 26.) While Plaintiff identifies one specialist, she fails to supply the name of the specialist located in Rochester, New York. Again, Plaintiff should state she made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information requested in the interrogatory based upon sources under her control. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that she looked for documents and investigated sources but could not find any additional information because she is no longer insured by the insurance provider connected to this treatment. (Id. at p. 28.) If that is true, Plaintiff should so state in an objection-free code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 84 is GRANTED.

SI No. 86

SI No. 86 asks Plaintiff to identify any and all television subscription services she subscribed to or has access to, including but not limited to, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, and/or any cable television service providers. Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is vague, overbroad, and violates her right to privacy. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also objects on the ground that the interrogatory is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant contends this information is relevant as Plaintiff claims she cannot work, in part, because viewing screens cause her to experience significant discomfort. Defendant thus argues such information may raise a legitimate question concerning Plaintiff’s contentions regarding her screen time and television usage. The Court does not find this argument persuasive. If Defendant intends to determine Plaintiff’s screen time and television usage, it could simply ask her through a properly worded interrogatory. The identity of Plaintiff’s television subscriptions however do not go toward resolving issues raised in this personal injury action. The Court therefore sustains the objection.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 86 is DENIED.

SI No. 87

SI No. 87 asks Plaintiff to identify the medical facility in Delaware where she was presented for a bee sting. In her amended response, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and harassing. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also objects on the ground that the interrogatory violates her right to privacy. However, the identity of the medical facility in Delaware would not constitute any substantial intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy or disclose details of any medical treatment. Therefore, the privacy objection is overruled. Similarly, Plaintiff objects on the ground that the interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as there is no claim addressing bee-sting related issues. Neither the moving papers nor the reply brief address how this interrogatory is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. The Court therefore sustains the objection on this ground.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 87 is DENIED.

SI No. 119

SI No. 119 asks Plaintiff to describe any logs, diaries, notes and/or notebooks she created relating to complaints attributed to the incident. No factual response has been provided. Rather, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the interrogatory is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, calls for information that is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, violates her right to privacy, and calls for information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 119 is GRANTED.

SI No. 138

SI No. 138 asks Plaintiff to describe the number of new clients/accounts she obtained while she was employed at LinkedIn between June 2014 and January 2015. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is overbroad and calls for expert opinion. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also provides the following factual response: “After a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiff does not recall how many clients/accounts she oversaw at LinkedIn at the time when she returned from her leave in or about June 2014 and January 2015.” This response is evasive as it fails to answer the call of the question. Specifically, the interrogatory asks her to describe the number of new clients/accounts she obtained, not oversaw during the relevant time period. Defendant therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 138 is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPD

Defendant moves to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 19, 23, 24, 31, 32, and 33 because the objections are meritless.

Legal Standard

A responding party to an inspection demand must respond separately to each item in the demand by stating one of the following: (1) an agreement to comply; (2) a representation of inability to comply, or (3) objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) If a party demanding a response to an inspection demand deems: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310-320; Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter Group 2018) at § 8:1495.)

RPD No. 19

RPD No. 19 seeks production of Plaintiff’s logs, diaries, word books, notes or notebooks with respect to complaints attributed to the subject incident.

A motion to compel further responses to RPD must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The moving party establishes good cause by showing: (1) relevance to the subject matter of the case; and (2) specific facts justifying discovery. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance].) Discovery is allowed for any matters that are not privileged and relevant to the subject matter, and a matter is relevant if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Moreover, for discovery purposes, information is “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Defendant here asserts that Plaintiff previously testified to creating these documents requested by this production. Defendant contends such information is germane to Plaintiff’s injuries, condition, and recovery and thus is highly relevant to this case. Having provided good cause for production, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to justify any objections to production.

Plaintiff did not provide any factual response. Instead, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the request is vague, overbroad, calls for information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, violates her right to privacy, and calls for information protected by the attorney client and work product privileges. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Defendant therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 19 is GRANTED.

RPD Nos. 23-24

RPD Nos. 23 and 24 seek any and all documents relating to disability requests made by Plaintiff and disability denials she received with respect to the subject incident. Defendant however fails to make the threshold showing of good cause for production with respect to RPD Nos. 23 and 24. Having failed to do so, the Court declines to address the objections raised to these requests.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 23-24 is DENIED.

RPD Nos. 31-33

RPD Nos. 31-32 seek documents regarding Plaintiff’s social networking posts, profiles, messages, photographs, and videos regarding her recreational activities, physical well-being and treatment for injuries for which she is now claiming damages beginning five years prior to the date of the subject incident until the present. RPD No. 33 asks Plaintiff to produce her account data for a period of five years prior to the subject incident through the present for each of her Facebook accounts. Defendant argues there is good cause for production as Plaintiff may have discussed information relevant to this lawsuit on various online platforms. Defendant thus contends such information will likely lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Having shown good cause for production, the Court examines the objections raised by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not provide any factual response. Instead, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the request is vague, overbroad, calls for information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, violates her right to privacy, and calls for information protected by the attorney client and work product privileges. These objections are not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Plaintiff also objects on the ground that the requests are duplicative of those contained in Defendant’s RPD (set two). This argument is well-taken as these requests mirror RPD Nos. 16, 17, and 18 in set two. (See Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Plaintiff served responses to RPD (set two) on September 22, 2017. (Id. at Ex. E.) Thus, to the extent that Defendant wanted a further response, it needed to file said motion to RPD (set two) within the 45-day timeframe. Having failed to do so, Defendant cannot re-serve the identical discovery, reset the clock and move to compel a further response. (See Professional Career Colleges, Magna Institute, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490 [a party who misses the 45-day deadline to bring a motion to compel may not circumvent that requirement by serving a later demand for the same discovery].) Defendant fails to address this objection in its reply papers. The Court therefore sustains the objection on this ground.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 31-33 is DENIED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions in conjunction with the motion to compel. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d) 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Defendant makes a code compliant request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record in the amount of $4,722. Defendant however only partially prevails on its motion to compel further responses. Thus, the Court will reduce the amount and award $800 in sanctions (4.0 hours X $185 hourly rate + $60 motion filing fee).

Accordingly, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $800.

Disposition

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 84, 119, and 138 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with verified code compliant further responses, without objections, within 7 calendar days of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 80, 86, and 87 is DENIED.

The motion to compel a further response to RPD No. 19 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with a verified code compliant further response, without objections, and produce all responsive documents within 7 calendar days of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to RPD Nos. 23, 24, 31, 32, and 33 is DENIED.

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall pay $800 in monetary sanctions to Defendant within 7 calendar days of this Order.