Jane Doe vs. EF Educational Homestay Program
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (EF Homestay)
York, Wendy C.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant EF Homestay to provide Further Answers to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. The request for imposition of sanctions is GRANTED. Code Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2023.030(a).

Plaintiff Jane Doe brings this case against multiple Defendants, including EF Homestay, Jeannette Bradley, and Julie Brown for damages arising from: Sexual Assault and Battery; Negligence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that EF Homestay recruits students from foreign countries to travel to the U.S. to take part in its foreign exchange program and social activities in exchange for financial consideration. EF Homestay recruits local area residents to serve as host families for its foreign students and clients. In this action, plaintiff alleges that EF Homestay approved defendant Daniele Colombini’s application for their program without rigorously screening him or scrutinizing his moral character.

Plaintiff and her family had never met Defendant Daniele Colombini before housing him. Shortly after taking up residence with Plaintiffs family, Daniele Colombini is alleged to have sexually assaulted and raped Plaintiff Jane Doe, a 17-year-old girl.

On May 21, 2013, plaintiff served written discovery – requests for admissions, form and special interrogatories and request for production of documents (sets one) on defendant EF Homestay. After an agreed upon extension of time, initial responses were served by defendant on August 2, 2013.

After meet and confer, on Oct. 4, 2013, defendant EF Homestay served supplemental responses to the form and special interrogatories. No supplemental responses to the request for production of documents were provided, although 411 pages of documents were produced.

After further meet and confer, defendant EF Homestay provided supplemental responses to request for production of documents on Nov. 7, 2013.

Despite further meet and confer, on Nov. 12, 2013, defendant EF Homestay refused to provide further supplemental responses. This motion followed.

The motion to compel further responses by defendant to each of the enumerated form interrogatories is GRANTED.

Form Interrogatory No. 3.1:

In response to this interrogatory requesting all names under which defendant has done business is EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. Defendant merely argues in opposition, rather than providing a verified supplemental response that EF Homestay is a d.b.a. of EF Intercultural Foundation. A further verified response is required.

Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1-12.3:

Interrogatory 12.1 requests the identities and contact information for witnesses to the incident or events occurring immediately prior to or thereafter. The response provides a list which is incomplete, as Defendant failed to list any EF Homestay employee based in or around El Dorado Hills or the greater Sacramento Area, including those identified in defendant’s response to interrogatory nos. 12.1 and 15.1. Defendant shall provide a further response to form no. 12.1. Defendant’s response to interrogatory nos. 12.2 and 12.3 requesting information relating to any interview concerning the incident (12.2) and any written or recorded statement by a witness (12.3) by defendant EF Homestay, or anyone acting on its behalf, is limited to an objection on the grounds of the attorney work-product doctrine.

In Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 502-503 the Supreme Court held that because it is not evident that form interrogatory No. 12.3 implicates the policies underlying the work product privilege in all or even most cases. There the Court held that information responsive to form interrogatory No. 12.3 is not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute or qualified work product privilege. Instead, the interrogatory usually must be answered. However, an objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or efforts. Upon such a showing, the trial court should then determine, by making an in camera inspection if necessary, whether absolute or qualified work product protection applies to the material in dispute. To be sure, a trial court may also have to consider nonparty witnesses’ privacy concerns. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶¶ 8:298 to 8:299.15, pp. 8C-88 to 8C-89.)

Here, neither moving party nor opposing party directly addresses the holding of Coito.

Opposing party fails to provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for this Court to determine that the attorney work-product privilege is applicable to the witnesses interviewed, if any.

Defendant shall provide a further verified response to no. 12.2 and 12.3, including yes/no answers and a privilege log, including BATES numbers for each document with the witnesses’ names redacted shall be provided, so a further review of the validity of the work product protection asserted may be conducted.

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1

This interrogatory asks Defendant to identify each denial of a material allegation and special or affirmative defense in Defendant’s pleadings and for each set forth the facts supporting each denial or special or affirmative defense; the witnesses who have knowledge of these facts and all documents supporting these facts.

For 11 affirmative defenses: Release, Comparative Negligence, Comparative Fault, Failure to state a Cause of Action, Failure to Mitigate Damages, Apportionment of Non-Economic Damages, Apportionment, Contribution, Consent, Improper Forum and Choice of Law, and Other Defense after discovery, defendant gave one single response.

Defendant shall provide further separate responses for each of the affirmative defenses, as the Form Interrogatory requires, with facts, witnesses and documents.

Form Interrogatory 17.1

After providing responses to many Requests for Admissions that were less than an unqualified admission, defendant’s responses to this interrogatory consist of nothing more than a cross-reference to its inadequate response to form interrogatory no. 15.1.

A full and complete response must be provided by defendant.

Defendant shall provide counsel for the Plaintiff with verified, further written answers to the enumerated form interrogatories not later than Monday, Feb. 3, 2014.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,260.00 (representing 4 hours of attorneys’ fees at $300/hr. and $60 filing fee) shall be paid by defendant to counsel for the plaintiff not later than Monday, Feb. 24, 2014. If sanctions are not paid by the due date, prevailing party may submit a formal order for enforcement purposes. Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order nor further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice.