Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Orange County records defendant is represented by the Douglas Law Group.

30-2013-00681563

Motion to Compel Responses

Plaintiff propounded three sets of basic initial discovery to defendant. Most of the substantive issues with the discovery responses have been resolved since the filing of the motion. A few responses remain, as does plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.

RPD

Plaintiff first sought an order compelling defendant to produce documents it already agreed to produce, to wit: categories 1-11. A motion under §2031.320 does not require a “meet and confer” declaration or “good cause” for the documents sought. See Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903. Instead, all that must be shown is that the responding party agreed to produce, but for unknown reasons requires judicial incentive to actually follow through with that promise. According to plaintiff, the original response did not contain the actual documents. According to defendant, the original response did contain the documents, but since plaintiff complained a second set (now Bates stamped) has been provided. In this instance of he said vs. she said, this Court declines to find that either side is at fault for any discovery abuse.

Plaintiff next seeks a substantive response to Nos. 14 and 15, which defendant objected to on the grounds of relevance (aka, no good cause). Although defendant has since supplemented its response and rendered the motion moot, plaintiff still wants monetary sanctions so this Court must determine whether the objections (and the opposition upon which they were based) were proper.

Absent a claim of privilege, the party seeking discovery meets his or her burden of “good cause” simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance, to wit: the documents may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. In fact, even if there is no good cause to require production, the responding party must still identify the existence of responsive documents. See Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1190; in accord, Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293. Although the requests for photographs or videos of plaintiff seems a stretch, if defendant had such items there was no legitimate reason to withhold that information. Plaintiff’s short tenure made the search for such items easy, and it was the company which elected to provide a broad termination letter making it impossible to know if photographs or videos could lead to something relevant. Standing on the objections was improper. Plaintiff was within his rights to bring the motion.

Since plaintiff prevailed on only a portion of this motion, sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are awarded. Defendant’s counter request for sanctions is denied.

Interrogatories

Plaintiff first sought a further response to employment interrogatories 201.4, 204.3 and 209.2. Since the motion was filed, defendant supplemented the responses which now render the motion moot; however, plaintiff still requests monetary sanctions for the delay and expense caused by defendant’s initial noncompliant responses.

In general, the party responding to interrogatories has an obligation to provide responses which are “as complete and straightforward” as possible. CCP §2030.220. With regard to 201.4(f), defendant’s original response was technically compliant, although it was skeletal – especially when compared to the lengthy supplemental response. With regard to 204.3, defendant’s original response was adequate. With regard to 209.2, defendant’s original response was inadequate. Asserting a blanket objection to discovery of this nature is improper; rather, a response limited to similar disputes (which defendant eventually provided) would have been the prudent response. See Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87.

Plaintiff also sought a further response to general interrogatories 12.1, 12.2 and 12.4. It is unclear if defendant supplemented these responses (the reply papers make limited reference to these), but the original responses were clearly improper. Even if portions of an interrogatory are objectionable, the remaining answerable portion must be substantively addressed. CCP §2030.240; Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189; Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293. Here, defendant refused to respond at all because, in its view, the Judicial Council definition of “incident” was too amorphous and unfitting for a wrongful termination action. Plaintiff was only employed for a few months, so the potential world of events leading up to his termination cannot possibly be so confused as to warrant an outright objection. Defendant had an obligation to provide something. If that has now been done, no further response is needed. If it has not, then one must be produced within 10 days.

Plaintiff has prevailed on the bulk of this motion, so the entirely of fees sought ($960.00) is awarded. Defendant’s counter request for sanctions is denied.