Case Name: Jianhua Liu, et al. v. Yan Liang, et al.
Case No.: 17-CV-314208

I. Background and Discovery Dispute

This is a wage and hour action brought by plaintiffs Jianhua Liu (“Jianhua”) and Jun Liu (“Jun”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against defendants Yan Liang, Yao Lu, Heng Lu, and Lu Dumpling, Inc. (doing business as Shanghai Dumpling) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege they worked at Shanghai Dumpling, a restaurant operated by the individual defendants listed above, and did not receive overtime wages, rest periods, accurate wage statements, and wages upon termination. Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Defendants for each of these violations of the Labor Code as well as for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Jianhua and Jun each served Defendants with form interrogatories, set one (“FI”) and special interrogatories, set one (“SI”). (Song Decl., Ex. 1.) Defendants served Plaintiffs with responses prefaced by general objections and containing, in response to each individual interrogatory, both objections and substantive answers. (Song Decl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiffs deemed the general, prefatory objections improper, and so they asked Defendants to serve further responses without such objections. (Song Decl., Ex. 3.) In response, Defendants took issue with the fact that Plaintiffs were “opposing to [sic] [the] objections rather than objection [sic] to the responses provided.” (Song Decl., Ex. 4.) Ultimately, the parties were unable to informally resolve their discovery dispute.

Currently before the Court are two separate but identical motions to compel Defendants to provide further responses to the FI and SI by Jianhua and Jun, respectively. Plaintiffs and Defendants request an award of monetary sanctions in connection with each motion.

II. Motions to Compel Further Responses

As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue the Court should deny both motions because Plaintiffs do not identify discovery requests by number or include each request in their separate statement.

“A motion concerning interrogatories [ ] must identify the interrogatories [ ] by set and number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(d).) Additionally, a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement that includes the text of each interrogatory, the text of the response to each interrogatory, and “a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses [ ] as to each matter in dispute.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Plaintiffs do not identify in their motions or include in their separate statements any individual discovery requests. Instead, the motions are directed to the entirety of each set of FI and SI, and the separate statements contain the text of Defendants’ general, prefatory objections without more. Plaintiffs thus have not identified and included in their separate statements the specific discovery requests at issue as required by the California Rules of Court.

Although a court may deny a motion to compel further responses on that basis, a court is not required to do so. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-93.) Because Plaintiffs take issue only with Defendants’ general, prefatory objections to each FI and SI, the nature of the parties’ dispute is sufficiently clear and there is no prejudice to Defendants as a result of the noncompliance with the California Rules of Court. Consequently, the Court will not deny the motion for failure to identify and include each individual request at issue.

Turning to the merits, the demanding party may move to compel the responding party to provide a further response to an interrogatory if an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).) “While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

Plaintiffs argue Defendants improperly included general, prefatory objections, which were on the grounds of the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, “confidentiality,” as well as “burden[ ], oppress[ion], and overbr[eadth].” (Sep. Stat. at p. 2:3-14.) As Plaintiffs persuasively argue, Defendants must respond separately and fully to each interrogatory and cannot include generic, boilerplate objections as a preface to their responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, subd. (a), 2030.220, 2030.240; see also Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 216.)

Defendants’ opposition is nonresponsive. Defendants do not attempt to justify the generic and prefatory nature of their objections or the grounds for their objections. Instead, Defendants state “when responses are provided subject to objections, whether or not those objections apply is an issue reserved for the trial court to determine whether any particular answer/response should be admitted as evidence.” (Opp. at p. 6:9-11.) Defendants then add that “[w]hether or not certain objections should apply would be more properly addressed and brought in a motion in limine.” (Opp. at p. 6:13-14.) It is not particularly clear what Defendants mean. As a general matter, objections to discovery requests are not the same as objections to evidence at trial. (See generally Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a)(3); see also West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-18.) Otherwise, to the extent Defendants’ position is that the absence of objections to discovery responses may be treated as a failure to object to the admissibility of evidence at trial, they cite no authority in support. In sum, Defendants do not demonstrate their general, prefatory objections are proper.

The Court also observes that Defendants responded to each FI and SI “subject to the General Objections set out above and without waiving any of these objections.” (Song Decl., Ex. 2.) A response to an interrogatory must be complete and straightforward, including a response to the remainder of an interrogatory that is objectionable only in part. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220, 2030.240.) Defendants’ qualification of their responses as being made “subject to” objections suggests they may have limited their substantive responses in some way based on their general, prefatory objections. Consequently, further responses to the FI and SI are warranted.

In conclusion, the motions to compel further responses to the FI and SI are GRANTED. Defendants shall provide verified, code-compliant, further responses to the FI and SI without general, prefatory objections within 20 calendar days of the Court’s order.

III. Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Jianhua and Jun each request an award of monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $1,860, reflecting $900 in attorney’s fees incurred in preparing the motion, the $60 filing fee, and anticipated, additional attorney’s fees in the amount of $900. In Defendants’ consolidated opposition to both motions, they request an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,800, reflecting the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in opposing the motions.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Because Defendants unsuccessfully opposed the motions, they are not entitled to an award of monetary sanctions. For the same reason, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of monetary sanctions unless Defendants were substantially justified or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Defendants were not substantially justified because they did not even attempt to justify their general objections either during the parties’ meet and confer discussions or in their opposition to the motion. Otherwise, there are no circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of monetary sanctions.

The Court does not award sanctions for anticipated expenses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); see also Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot recover the $900 in anticipated attorney’s fees they request in connection with each motion. Although Plaintiffs may recover the $60 filing fee for each motion, they do not otherwise provide the Court with sufficient information to award them the $900 in attorney’s fees already incurred in preparing each motion. A request for monetary sanctions must be “accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) In the declarations submitted, Plaintiffs’ counsel does not set forth facts, such as the hourly rate charged or time spent preparing the motions, to support the request for attorney’s fees incurred. Thus, Plaintiffs also cannot recover those fees. To summarize, Jianhua and Jun are each entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $60 only.

In conclusion, Defendants’ request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ requests are GRANTED. Defendants’ counsel shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $120 within 20 calendar days of the Court’s order.

The Court will prepare the order.