Case Number: KC068693 Hearing Date: April 25, 2018 Dept: O

Gu v. WHPM Inc., et al. (KC068693)

Plaintiff Gu’s MOTION TO COMPEL [FURTHER] RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TEN

Respondent: Defendants WHPM Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Gu’s motion to compel [further] responses to requests for production of documents, set ten is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the sum of $2,685.00, payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff Gu moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set ten pursuant to CCP 2031.010.

CCP 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP 2031.310(b).)

Document Request Nos. 153-166:

The court finds Defendant WHPM Inc.’s responses are incomplete and evasive. Defendants merely interposed meritless objections without providing any factual response.

Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (CCP 2030.220(a),(b).) 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. (CCP 2030.220(c).) “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. (CCP 2031.230.)

Defendant contends that the information requested is not relevant to this action. However, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP 2017.010.) Admissibility at trial is not required. Rather, the test is whether the information sought might reasonably lead to other evidence that would be admissible. (CCP 2017.010; see Davies v. Sup.Ct. (1984) 36 C3d 291, 301.) The ‘relevance to the subject matter’ and ‘reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence’ standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790, fns. 7-8.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks the information to prove her job title as Quality Assurance Manager. Plaintiff has requested that Defendant simply admit that Plaintiff was a Quality Assurance Manager, and then the discovery on that issue would not be necessary. However, Defendant has refused to admit this foundational fact, forcing Plaintiff to discover the information through other means.

Further, Defendant objects on the basis of privacy. The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest. Inquiry into one’s private affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because the inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought might lead to other relevant evidence. The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

The requests seek documents that contain Plaintiff’s signature, showing that she was a Quality Assurance Manager. This information is simply not private information. Further, even if it was, Plaintiff has offered to allow Defendant to redact any personal information that may implicate the existing protective order.

Finally, Defendant’s boilerplate objections on grounds of vagueness and burdensomeness are without merit. Courts generally do not sustain this kind of objection unless the question is totally unintelligible. The answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best he or she can. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 783.) Further, it is not enough that the questions will require a lot of work to answer. It must be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. (West Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup.Ct., supra.) In determining whether the burden is unjust, a weighing process is required: It must appear that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answers. (See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19.) Such is not shown here.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days.

Sanctions: CCP 2030.310(d) authorizes the court to impose a sanction against any party/attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, 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.

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Defendant served incomplete responses to discovery. The court finds Plaintiff’s total request of $2,685.00 is reasonable. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the sum of $2,685.00, payable within 30 days.