Subiono Wasito et al vs Santy Kazali
Case No: 18CV03322
Hearing Date: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Compel Further Responses

Tentative Ruling: The court grants, in part, plaintiffs Subiono Wasito and Enny Soenjoto’s motion to compel further answers to interrogatories. The court orders defendant Harry Wasito to provide contact information, including phone numbers, for Hendra Chendana, Dexter Kosasih, and Nolaka Fernando and all individuals identified in response to Special Interrogatories ##18 and 25. The court orders defendant Adi Kazali to provide telephone numbers for all individuals identified in response to Form Interrogatory #201.6 and Special Interrogatories ##18, 25, and 26. The court orders defendant Santy Kazali to provide telephone numbers for all individuals identified in response to Form Interrogatory #201.6 and Special Interrogatory #18. To the extent defendants do not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully, they shall comply with CCP § 2030.220(c). All further responses shall be served no later than August 28, 2019, by means to ensure delivery the following day. The court denies all requests for monetary sanctions.

Background: This is a wage and hour action by plaintiffs Subiono Wasito and Enny Soenjoto, who were formerly employed at a Days Inn motel establishment owned and operated by three named defendants, Adi Kazali, Santy Kazali, and Harry Kazali. Harry and Santy Kazali, dba Days Inn of Santa Barbara, filed a first amended cross-complaint (FACC) against Wasito and Soenjoto for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. On March 27, 2019, the court sustained cross-defendants’ demurrer to the second, third, and fourth causes of action in the FACC, with leave to amend. Cross-complainants chose not to amend the FACC and the breach of contract claim remains the sole cause of action.

Trial is scheduled for September 11, 2019.

Motion: Plaintiffs move to compel each of the three defendants to provide further answers to interrogatories served on November 7, 2018. All three defendants provided supplemental responses in June 2019, so the motion is timely. Defendants oppose the motion.

At issue are defendants’ responses to form and special interrogatories regarding defendants’ other employees, particularly employees who replaced plaintiffs or who performed duties formerly performed by plaintiffs. These include Form Interrogatories (“FI”) ##201.5 and 201.6 (Adi and Santy Kazali), and Special Interrogatories (“SI”) ##18 (all defendants), 25 (Adi and Harry Kazali), and 26 (Adi only).

In supplemental responses, Adi says he has been retired for years and did not know, but identified individuals upon information and belief. He gave addresses for these individuals in response to SI #25. In response to FI #201.5, he answered “no.”

Santy answered “no” to FI #201.5. She identified four individuals in response to FI #201.6 and gave their addresses. In response to SI #18, she identified those same four individuals.

Harry answered SI #25 by listing ten individuals and giving addresses. In response to SI #18, he said he is the only other person to serve as resident manager and listed three individuals who performed front desk duties.

The main thrust of plaintiffs’ argument is that the answers are inaccurate because, at his deposition, Harry identified six individuals who performed front desk duties, including three individuals not otherwise listed in interrogatory responses—Hendra Chendana, Dexter Kosasih, and Nolaka Fernando.

As to Santy, she simply answers “no” or listed less than all the people others identified in interrogatory answers or at deposition. The court cannot order Santy to conform her responses to other defendants’ responses. She does not claim to not have personal knowledge, so the requirement of CCP § 2030.220(c) does not apply.

Adi has expressed a lack of personal knowledge. Therefore, he has an obligation to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. CCP § 2030.220(c). But he would inquire of Harry and plaintiffs have Harry’s responses. Since plaintiffs brought a single motion, the court will consider all responses.

Harry appears to have identified fewer employees than he identified at his deposition. That his responses are inconsistent can be used for impeachment purposes. But the court cannot order him to make his responses consistent. Considering all his responses (interrogatories and deposition), plaintiffs have the information, with the exception of contact information for Hendra Chendana, Dexter Kosasih, and Nolaka Fernando. Defendants’ lawyer says that his clients do not know Fernando’s current address and plaintiffs have Fernando’s last known address. But a lawyer’s response is not a substitute for Harry’s verified response. Although Harry has not identified these employees in his responses, it is too late for plaintiffs to propound new interrogatories asking for these specific addresses given the looming trial date. The court will order Harry to provide contact information for these three individuals. If he does not know, he shall comply with CCP § 2030.220(c).

Defendants have not provided phone numbers for the identified employees. They contend this is private information. Current and former employees unquestionably have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their addresses and telephone numbers.

Puerto v. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252 (2008). However, [n]othing could be more ordinary in discovery than finding out the location of identified witnesses so that they may be contacted and additional investigation performed.” Id. at 1254. “One glance at the form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council, particularly the interrogatories in the 12.0 series, demonstrates how fundamentally routine the discovery of witness contact information is. These standard form interrogatories request the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses to the relevant incident….” Id. at 1250.

Defendants say that telephone numbers are private information they cannot disclose pursuant to the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act. Defendants do not cite to any particular portion of that Act. Defendants state, without citation to authority, that it applies to employees. A memorandum in support of a motion “must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” CRC 3.1113(b). “Issues not supported by citation to legal authority are subject to forfeiture.” People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal.App.5th 801, 831 n10 (2017) (applying similar CRC 8.204(a)(1)(B) applicable to appeals). In any event, the Consumer Privacy Act, beginning at Civil Code § 1798.100, is not operative until January 1, 2020.

The court will order all three defendants to provide telephone numbers for all individuals identified in responses to the interrogatories at issue.

The court will order defendants to serve the further responses on August 28 by means to ensure delivery the following day. The court will not, as plaintiffs suggest in their reply, continue the trial date.

Plaintiffs ask for a monetary sanction of $7,660. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully … opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” CCP § 2030.300(d). The gravamen of the motion was to require responses conforming to other information plaintiffs have. The court has not granted that relief nor was it necessary. The court has only required a fraction of the answers sought. The judicial resources expended in analyzing the motion far exceed the merits of the motion. Therefore, the court concludes a monetary sanction would be unjust.

Order: The court grants, in part, plaintiffs Subiono Wasito and Enny Soenjoto’s motion to compel further answers to interrogatories. The court orders defendant Harry Wasito to provide contact information, including phone numbers, for Hendra Chendana, Dexter Kosasih, and Nolaka Fernando and all individuals identified in response to Special Interrogatories ##18 and 25. The court orders defendant Adi Kazali to provide telephone numbers for all individuals identified in response to Form Interrogatory #201.6 and Special Interrogatories ##18, 25, and 26. The court orders defendant Santy Kazali to provide telephone numbers for all individuals identified in response to Form Interrogatory #201.6 and Special Interrogatory #18. To the extent defendants do not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully, they shall comply with CCP § 2030.220(c). All further responses shall be served no later than August 28, 2019, by means to ensure delivery the following day. The court denies all requests for monetary sanctions.