Daniel Moody vs. Farmers Rice Cooperative
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Silva, Aaron B.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories or in the Alternative for Terminating, Issue or Evidentiary and/or Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, as set forth below.

In this action Plaintiff alleges a claim for wrongful termination. Plaintiff participated in an earlier Labor Relations Arbitration. As the Court stated in its prior Sept. 4, 2013 Minute Order granting a motion to compel further responses, Defendant seeks information about the labor arbitration for purposes of establishing res judicata against the claims raised herein. See Wade v Ports America Management Corp. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 648 [labor arbitration award, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, could bar an employee from bringing a common law claim related to the FEHA, if the arbitration award addressed the same cause of action.] Defendant served written discovery on plaintiff on March 28, 2013, including special interrogatories, form interrogatories, form interrogatories – employment and requests for admission. Plaintiff requested and received two extensions of time in which to respond to this discovery.

Plaintiff’s initial responses were served on May 20, 2013. No response (including no objection) was provided to form interrogatory no. 217.1, although a number of the requests for admissions had been denied.

After meet and confer, supplemental responses were provided to some of the discovery on July 22, 2013. Form interrogatory no. 217.1 however, remained unanswered.

After defendant’s further meet and confer attempt, a motion to compel further responses was filed and heard by this Court on August 28, 2013.

The Court’s Minute Order of Sept. 3, affirmed the tentative ruling which granted the majority of the motion to compel was granted, including the request for responses to Form Interrogatory-Employment No. 217.1 as it pertains to Request for Admission Nos. 6, 12 and 13. Sanctions were imposed in the amount of $2,420.

Plaintiff was ordered to provide further responses, without objections, by Sept. 18, 2013.

The second supplementary response served by Plaintiff on Sept. 20, 2013, contained a response to form interrogatory no. 217.1.

Defendant found the response to no. 217.1, as it pertained to Request for Admission Nos. 6, 12 and 13, to be evasive and inadequate.

Another meet and confer attempt was made, but plaintiff’s counsel refused to provide further responses. This motion followed.

Defendant contends that it has been attempting to obtain meaningful responses to interrogatory 21.1, as it pertains to Request for Admission Nos. 6, 12 and 13, since March 28, 2013. The plaintiff’s failure to provide full and complete responses, without objections, despite a waiver due to failure to timely respond and a court order overruling objections to Form Interrogatory-Employment No. 217.1 as it pertains to Request for Admission Nos. 6, 12 and 13, is willful, preceded by a history of discovery abuse and justifies significant sanctions.

The answers sought are directly relevant to the moving party defendant’s 12
th
Affirmative Defense that the arbitrator’s determination that plaintiff was terminated for just cause constitutes collateral estoppel/issue preclusion.

Plaintiff’s opposition attempts to minimize the significance of its failure to comply with the Court order, by belatedly providing a third supplemental response to Form Interrogatory-Employment No. 217.1.

The Court finds that the third supplemental response is also inadequate and evasive, as plaintiff asserts (despite a court order overruling objections) that defendant is not entitled to the relevant facts of the disagreement between plaintiff and the Union attorney that represented plaintiff and the Union at the arbitration hearing. A Court order that answers be provided without objections, includes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

The Court imposes evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff as follows: issues an order prohibiting Plaintiff from testifying at trial, asserting in this action, or from attempting to introduce into evidence that: (1) during the arbitration Plaintiff was not provided an opportunity to call all witnesses he believed could testify as to relevant facts. (2) the parties were not provided the opportunity to subpoena witnesses to testify at the arbitration hearing to the extent each party deemed necessary. (3) Plaintiff’s arbitration representatives did not request that FRC provide documents they believed to be relevant in the arbitration proceeding.

In addition, monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,110, representing 10 hours of attorneys’ fees at $295/hr. and $60 filing fee. The court does not award fees for meeting and conferring.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.