2017-00219741-CU-WT

Elizabeth Walsh Berrios vs. The Hertz Corporation

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Ruggles, Matthew J.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Walsh Berrios’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel a further response from defendant the Hertz Corporation (“Defendant”) to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set three, number 32, is DENIED.

This a disability discrimination action [FEHA]. Plaintiff worked for Hertz as an administrative assistant at the Fulton Avenue Used Car location for approximately 6 months starting on January 19, 2016. She initially sought a two week leave of absence starting July 1, 2016 to recover from major knee surgery. On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff sent Hertz an email requesting an extension of the leave of absence until October 1, 2016, or “until further notice.” Defendant told her that they could not hold her position open for three months, and Plaintiff was terminated effective August 12, 2016. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s “Medical Leaves Policy” is discriminatory on its face because it requires the employee to disclose the requesting employee’s medical condition to the employer. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to accommodate her medical condition.

On May 19, 2018, Plaintiff served special interrogatories, set three, on Defendant. Special interrogatories, set three, number 32 seeks the name, business address, and job title of all employees and/or independent contractors of Defendant who had any involvement, or participated, in the drafting, revision, review or approval of the Company’s personnel policies produced by Defendant as documents Bates numbered HTZ-BERRIOS00001 to 13 (an excerpt from the Hertz Employee Handbook).

Defendant served its initial response on April 23, 2018, and then served two supplemental responses. Defendant’s second verified supplemental response objected on the grounds the interrogatory is overbroad, seeks proprietary and confidential information, seeks information protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges, and seeks information that is not relevant. Defendant then responded:

“After a reasonable search and diligent inquiry whereby Defendant has exhausted all known search avenues (including, but not limited to, document searches and employee discussions) Defendant cannot determine or identify who drafted, revised, and/or approved of [sic] the excerpts of the Hertz Car Sales Employee Handbook Bates numbered HTZ-BERRIOS00001 to 13. Defendant notes it had significant turnover upon moving its corporate headquarters from Park Ridge, New Jersey to Estero, Florida and a significant amount of institutional knowledge was lost in the process. However, discovery is ongoing and Defendant will supplement its response should it be able to determine or identify information responsive to this interrogatory in the future.”

Plaintiff contends Defendant has not provided a straightforward and complete response. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s search is insufficient because Defendant has

not stated it searched all of its electronically stored information. Plaintiff also alleges that because Defendant admits its medical leave policy has been modified, Defendant should be able to identify who was responsible for the revisions to the Employee Handbook. In a nutshell, it seems Plaintiff’s argument is essentially, “You haven’t done enough” and “I don’t believe you.” The Court notes that while Plaintiff spends a great deal of time explaining why this information is relevant, Defendant does not dispute its relevance.

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.220(c) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)

Defendant’s response is sufficient. Defendant has served a verified response wherein it indicated it conducted a “reasonable search and diligent inquiry” to determine the identities of those who drafted, revised or approved the Hertz Car Sales Employee Handbook. Despite Plaintiff’s contention, Defendant is not required to specifically state who it interviewed, who it did not interview, and all of the sources it searched or did not search. Further, Hertz explained it conducted searches of documents and interviewed current and former employees, but was still unable to provide a response. Hertz has sufficiently explained the reasonable and good faith effort it undertook to obtain the information and the basis upon which it cannot provide a full response. Defendant also specifically noted it will supplement its response should it be able to determine or identify information responsive to this interrogatory in the future. If Plaintiff desires further information regarding the specifics of Defendant’s search and inquiry, it can attempt to obtain such information through additional written discovery or depositions.

On reply, Plaintiff argues a further response is required because Defendant limited its response to the 2016 Employee Handbook policies, even though the interrogatory is not limited to only 2016. The verified response provided by Defendant, however, does not contain any reference to 2016. Accordingly, this argument is rejected.

No further response is required.

The parties’ requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED. The Court finds that the circumstances would render sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).)

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