2016-00199813-CU-WT

Jamileff Haywood vs. Twin Rivers Unified School District

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Requests for Admission

Filed By: Williams, Amy E.

Defendant Twin Rivers Unified School District’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jamileff Haywood to provide further responses to requests for admission is ruled upon as follows.

In this employment action Plaintiff, a former teacher’s assistant with Defendant, alleges claims for whistleblower retaliation based on complaints of alleged violations of Head Start regulations. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for reporting the violations.

At issue on the instant motion are Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admission nos. 1 and 2. No. 1 asked Plaintiff to admit that the document attached as Exhibit A to the requests was a true and correct copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) applicable to Plaintiff’s employment at the time she was terminated. No. 2 asked Plaintiff to admit that a certain provision in the CBA governed the terms and conditions regarding vacation time. Plaintiff interposed numerous boilerplate objections based on vagueness and overbreadth, and that the requests call for a legal conclusion.

Subject to the objections Plaintiff responded that upon “information and belief,” she never received a copy of the CBA during her employment “and therefore does not have personal knowledge to admit or deny this request, and on that basis, denies.”

The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s argument that the motion to compel was not timely filed. This argument is identical to the argument which was rejected in the Court’s ruling in item 10 on Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, and is rejected for the same reasons.

Turning to the remainder of the argument, the Court would note the Code specifically allows for a motion for further responses based on the contention that responses contain objections that lack merit. (E.g., CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).) In such a circumstance, the party asserting the objection obviously has the burden to justify the objection. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].)

Plaintiff’s opposition focuses almost exclusively on the contention that she cannot be required to provide a further response because she lacks personal knowledge because she never received a copy of the CBA. The Court analyzed this argument in connection with Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories in item 10 and the argument is rejected for the same reasons here. The fact that Plaintiff may not have received a copy of the CBA while she was employed does not necessarily mean that she does not now have personal knowledge sufficient to admit or deny that Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the CBA that was in effect at the time she was terminated. Again, as discussed in the ruling in item 10, Plaintiff must conduct a reasonable inquiry regarding this matter. As noted by the Court in that ruling, Plaintiff has been provided an internet link and also has been provided the CBA by Defendant in discovery. A statement that upon “information and belief” she never received a copy of the CBA during her employment is not sufficient to comply with CCP § 2033.220(c) which provides that where a responding party provides lack of information or knowledge as a basis for failing to admit a request, the party “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(c).) Plaintiff’s responses contain no such statement. Further responses must be provided.

To the extent that Plaintiff objected on the basis that the requests call for a legal conclusion, the objection is overruled. Plaintiff does not specifically discuss this objection. Nevertheless, “when a party is served with a request for admission concerning a legal question properly raised in the pleadings he cannot object simply by asserting that the request calls for a conclusion of law.” (Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282.) A request for admissions may require an application of law to fact.” Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 735; C.C.P. section 2033.010.

The Court also rejects the contention that Defendant failed to meet and confer. Despite the accusations that Defendant failed to meet and confer on the issues raised by the instant motion, Defendant adequately met and conferred. (E.g., Williams Decl. Exhs. M, P, R.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied as Defendant’s motion was successful and thus substantially justified. Defendant’s request for sanctions made for the first time in

reply on the basis that Plaintiff improperly accused Defendant of misusing discovery and opposing the motion without substantial justification is denied. Defendant did not request sanctions in the notice of motion nor discuss sanctions in the opening memorandum. “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanctions sought.” (CCP § 2023.040.) Defendant appears to have recognized this as it filed and served a notice of request for sanctions on January 5, 2018. However, as seen in the Court’s ruling in item 9, this request was dropped for insufficient notice.

As a result, the motion is granted. No later than January 26, 2018, Plaintiff shall provide further verified responses to Defendant’s requests for admission nos. 1 and 2 consistent with the above.