2018-00230569-CU-WT

Tamme Shinshuri vs. California Physicians Services

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form & Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Shinshuri, Tamme

Self-represented plaintiff Tamme Shinshuri’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel further responses from defendant California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California (“Defendant”) to Plaintiff’s first set of form and special interrogatories is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff filed this action on April 9, 2018. Plaintiff alleges claims for discrimination and wrongful termination based on her race and gender. She alleges she was denied a promotion and ultimately fired because of her race and gender.

Plaintiff served form interrogatories (general), form interrogatories (employment law), and special interrogatories, set one, on July 10, 2019.

On August 5, 2019, defense counsel contacted Plaintiff to request a one-week extension of time to respond to the interrogatories due to summer vacation schedules. (Dwight Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff did not grant the extension on the ground that she needed responses to prepare her opposition to Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. (Ibid.) Defense counsel offered to discuss continuing the motion for summary judgment to provide more time for Plaintiff to prepare an opposition, but Plaintiff declined. (Ibid.)

On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff requested a “meet and confer meeting to determine whether [she had] to file a motion for sanction[s].” (Dwight Decl. ¶¶13-14, Exh. B.) The parties met and conferred by phone on August 8, 2019, but did not discuss the substance of any specific interrogatory. (Dwight Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.)

Defendant served objections and responses on August 9, 2019, with verifications to follow. Defendant responded with objections only to certain requests, and with objections and responses to others. (Dwight Decl. ¶ 15.)

In a letter dated August 16, 2019, Plaintiff indicated to Defendant that she intended to file a motion to compel further responses based solely upon Defendant’s failure to serve verifications. (Dwight Decl. ¶ 16, Exh. C.) In that letter, Plaintiff asserted that failure to serve verifications resulted in a waiver of all objections and she demanded Defendant respond to all interrogatories within five days “without objection.” (Ibid.)

Defendant emailed Plaintiff verifications on August 21, 2019, with hard copies to follow by U.S. Mail. (Dwight Decl. Exh. D.) Due to a clerical error, Defendant inadvertently emailed the same verification 3 times (instead of 3 separate verifications). Plaintiff never alerted Defendant to this mistake, which could have easily been remedied.

In response, Plaintiff again threatened to file a motion to compel “complete verified responses with sanctions.” (Dwight Decl. ¶¶ 17-19, Exh. D.) In response, Defendant requested a meet and confer and proposed the parties discuss any specific responses Plaintiff believed Defendant should supplement. (Dwight Decl. ¶ 20, Exh. D.) Plaintiff refused to meet and confer and insisted the parties had already met and conferred. (Dwight Decl. ¶ 21, Exh. D.) Defendant responded it was not “playing games,” and simply did not understand what Plaintiff was unsatisfied with because she now had verified responses. (Dwight Decl. ¶ 22, Exh. D.) Again, Defendant offered to discuss with Plaintiff any specific responses that she would like Defendant to supplement and again Plaintiff refused and reiterated she would file a motion to compel. (Dwight Decl. ¶ 23, Exh. D.)

Plaintiff then filed this 700-page motion to compel on September 6, 2019, with a hearing date of September 27, 2019. After filing the motion to compel, Plaintiff obtained an ex parte order advancing this matter to today’s date. The Court notes Defendant contends Plaintiff did not provide proper ex parte notice to defense counsel.

Although not a model of clarity, Plaintiff’s motion seems to seek an order compelling Defendant to withdraw all objections on the grounds that all objections were waived because verifications were not served on August 9, 2019. This argument is rejected. Objections need not be verified as attorneys raise objections, and their objections need not be “verified” by a party. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658; see also Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 339.) Accordingly, Defendant’s failure to serve verifications with the objections does not render the objections untimely and waived.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks further responses, the motion is DENIED in its entirety due to Plaintiff’s failure to engage in a serious, meaningful, and good faith attempt to meet and confer on the specific issues raised by the motion. Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(b) expressly requires that a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration pursuant to § 2016.040. This latter provision states in its entirety: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issued presented by the motion.” Here, as noted above, Plaintiff did not meet and confer with defense counsel regarding the substance of a single one of Defendant’s responses to her interrogatories. Plaintiff refused multiple times to identify the requests at issue that she wanted Defendant to supplement. At most, Plaintiff had indicated dissatisfaction with the lack of verifications, but verifications were served prior to the filing of this motion. And while Defendant inadvertently emailed the same verification 3 times instead of 3 separate verifications, there is no argument or evidence from Plaintiff that the hard copy of the verifications sent in the mail were not correct. Nor did Plaintiff ever alert Defendant to this clerical error in the email attachment, which could have been easily and quickly remedied. The meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather, it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.)

The Court must note that Plaintiff’s propria persona status does not excuse her failure to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court. Self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639.) While Plaintiff is self-represented and no doubt has little or no legal training, self-represented litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) A party representing himself or herself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. Plaintiff in pro per is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees for their own time spent on litigation. (See Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201.)

Plaintiff’s request to dismiss the upcoming October 4, 2019, hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff has presented no basis upon which the motion for summary judgment should be dismissed. Plaintiff may seek a continuance as to the summary judgment motion, if needed, pursuant to CCP § 437c (h), upon a good cause showing.

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