2012-00133489-CU-OE

Philip Lozano vs. City of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Compel Interrogatories

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Compel Interrogatories

Filed By:  Rogan, Kathleen T.

*** If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the
requesting party must inform the court and opposing counsel of the specific
interrogatories or issues on which oral argument is sought. ***

The motion of Defendant City of Sacramento (“City”) to compel Plaintiff Philip Lozano
(“Plaintiff”) to serve further responses to the City’s first sets of form interrogatories and
special interrogatories is GRANTED as follows:

This case presents an employment dispute.  Plaintiff has pleaded several causes of
action against the City, the alleged employer, including causes of action for breach of
employment contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, sexual
harassment and discrimination under FEHA, retaliation under FEHA, racial
discrimination under FEHA, and harassment based on color under FEHA.

The City served the subject interrogatories on June 28, 2013.  The first set of special
interrogatories contains 270 contention interrogatories.  The City granted Plaintiff two
extensions such that the responses to the interrogatories were due served on
September 9, 2013.  Plaintiff mail-served responses to the form interrogatories on
September 25, 2013 and mail-served responses to the special interrogatories on
October 1, 2013.  Deeming Plaintiffs objections untimely and the substantive
responses insufficient, counsel for the City served a meet-and-confer letter on
November 5, 2013.  Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond.  The City timely filed the instant
motion to compel.

First, the court agrees with the City that Plaintiff waived the right to object by failing to
serve his responses before the extensions to respond expired.  Accordingly, Plaintiff
must file further responses in which all objections have been deleted.

The court further agrees that Plaintiff’s substantive responses are insufficient for the
reasons stated in the City’s separate statement.  Thus, Plaintiff must serve further
responses.

In serving further responses, Plaintiff is directed to comply strictly with CCP §
2030.220.  Plaintiff may not simply refer the City to Plaintiff’s other responses to
discovery.  Nor may Plaintiff simply cut and paste allegations in his pleadings.  Each
interrogatory must be answered separately and according to the call of the
interrogatory.

Pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.020(i), 2023.020 and 2030.300(d), the court imposes a
monetary sanction against Plaintiff and his counsel, The Law Offices of Richard A.
Lewis, in the amount of $1,060 (5 hrs @ reasonable rate of $200/hr + $60 filing fee.)
Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer.  In addition, Plaintiff unsuccessfully
opposed the motion without substantial justification, and circumstances do not
otherwise make the imposition of a monetary sanction unjust.

Conclusion

The motion is granted.                 No later than January 17, 2014, Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses, without
objections to (1) Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.4-12.7 and (2) Special Interrogatories
Nos. 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63,
66, 69, 78, 99, 102, 105, 108, 211, 214, 217, 220, 223, 226, 229, 232, 235, 262, 265
and 268.

No later than January 17, 2014, Plaintiff and his counsel shall pay the monetary
sanction.  If Plaintiff and his counsel fail to pay the sanction by such date, then the City
may lodge for the court’s signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be
enforced as a separate judgment.  (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40
th
Cal.App.4    608, 615.)

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.