2013-00138690-CU-MC

Kara Miller vs. County of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Compel 1) Admissions 2) Form Interrogatories

Filed By:  Motooka, Wendy

***  Judge Cadei discloses that his wife, Toni J. Moore, is the Executive Director
of the First 5 Sacramento Commission, an entity which is part of the County of
Sacramento.  First 5 California and 58 First 5 County Commissions were created
by statewide voter initiative passed in 1998.  First 5 is separately funded out of
special tobacco tax proceeds and is directed to support programs for children.
As such the Commission is not dependent on the general funds of Sacramento
County for its operations.  The Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County  does review and approve its yearly budgets and long-term plans.  ***

Defendant County of Sacramento’s motion to compel plaintiff’s further responses to
two particular requests for admissions and the corresponding form interrogatory is
GRANTED, as follows.

Although the notice of motion provided notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D), the notice does not comply with that rule.  Moving
counsel is directed to review the Local Rules, effective 1/1/2013.

At the outset, the Court must remind both counsel that given the number of motions
such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough
judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could
have and should have been resolved informally.  That this is just such a dispute only
serves to highlight the critical need for legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-
confer efforts before filing any discovery motion.  The failure to do so in the future
may be subject to the imposition of sanctions.

This is an employment discrimination case by plaintiff against her employer.  Among
other things, plaintiff alleges defendant failed to accommodate the former’s religious
practices while accommodating other employees.

The two requests for admissions at issue here read as follows:

No. 5.  ADMIT that during the period of YOUR employment at SCMHTC
commencing in 2010, YOU could have attended church services at
Bayside Church on Saturdays.

No. 6.  ADMIT that during the period of YOUR employment at SCMHTC
commencing in 2010, YOU could have attended church services at Bayside
Church on Sunday evenings.

Plaintiff’s response to both requests was identical:

Objection.  The responding party objects to this Request as being unduly
burdensome, oppressive, vexatious and harassing in that the terms “church
services” are not reasonably defined calling for speculation and conjecture as to
their meaning, definition or scope, and thus are vague and ambiguous. Without
waiving any objections, and subject thereto, the responding party answers as
follows:

The responding party admits that Bayside Church offered various services at
other times and on other days. However, the responding party must deny the
Request as to her own religious services. The specific ministry that the
responding party has attended for the past 8 years only meets on Sunday
mornings at 11:30 a.m., so the responding party must deny this Request in part.

Defendant now contends that plaintiff did not respond to the requests as written but
rather “pretended” that defendant was “asking for two different admissions”:  (1) Admit
the church offered services at times other than Sunday at 11:30 a.m. and (2) admit
plaintiff could have attended the 11:30 a.m. Sunday service on Saturdays or Sunday
evenings.  Plaintiff then responded by admitting there were other services but denying              she could attend the 11:30 a.m. Sunday service on either Saturday or Sunday
evening.  However, defendant argues it is entitled to answers which respond to the
requests actually propounded.

Despite plaintiff’s insistence that her responses are complete and appropriate, the
Court disagrees and grants the motion as to both requests.  Code of Civil Procedure
§2033.220(a) requires a response to be “as complete and straightforward as the
information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” while § 2033.220(b)
permits a responding party to (1) admit so much of the request that is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably qualified by the responding party, (2)
deny so much of the request as is not true and (3) specify so much of the matter of
which the party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.  Plaintiff’s responses do not
comply with this standard and she must therefore provide further responses in
conformity with these provisions.

For essentially the same reasons, plaintiff’s responses to the corresponding form
interrogatory 217.1 are deficient and further responses must be provided unless
plaintiff’s further responses to the two requests for admissions are unqualified
admissions.

Consistent with the foregoing, plaintiff to provide verified further responses, without
objections, to the two requests for admission and form interrogatory 217.1 no later
than 6/16/2014.  The parties remain free to extend this date by mutual agreement
memorialized in writing.

No sanctions were requested by either side.

This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)