Case Number: EC061802    Hearing Date: November 07, 2014    Dept: A

Zarookean v Unique Food Distribution, Inc.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Calendar: 11
Case No: EC061802
Date: 11/7/14

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Plaintiff, Joanna Zarookean
Order compelling further responses to special interrogatories; order imposing monetary sanctions of $560.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that she suffered sexual harassment while she was an employee for the Defendant. In addition, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide a proper statement of wages, and failed to pay wages.
Trial is set for November 17, 2014.

This hearing concerns Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff appeared with an ex parte application to shorten time to hear a motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories. Under CCP section 2030.300, the Court may order a further response when any of the following applies:

1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

The Plaintiff seeks further responses to special interrogatories 1 to 7, which seeks facts and documents regarding food orders or other communications with other companies, wholesalers, and customers.
In response to the interrogatories, the Defendant served only objections, e.g., overbroad, burdensome, not likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence, violates Civil Code section 3295. Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. This imposes the burden on the Defendant to proceed through every objection in each of its responses and demonstrate that each objection has merit. The Defendant did not meet this burden.

In an opposition filed on October 31, 2014, the Defendant argued that the discovery does not seek relevant evidence and seeks financial information. The Defendant fails to apply these arguments to each special interrogatory to justify each of his objections. Since the Defendant does not proceed through each objection and demonstrate that each special interrogatory does not seek relevant evidence or seeks financial information barred by Civil Code section 3295, the Defendant has not met its burden.

Accordingly, the Court will order the Defendant to serve further responses without objections to special interrogatories 1 to 7.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions of $560 on the Defendant. Under CCP section 2030.300, the Court may impose monetary sanctions on the Defendant for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the Plaintiff to seek relief from the Defendant’s failure to serve proper responses. The Plaintiff’s attorney, Freeman Butland, provides facts to demonstrate that he spent 2 hours at $250 per hour on the motion and that the filing fee is $60.
Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions of $560 on the Defendant.

RULING:
Plaintiff, Joanna Zarookean
ORDER Defendant to serve further responses to special interrogatories without objections within five days; IMPOSE monetary sanctions in the sum of $560.00.