Case Name: Kathy Hughes v. Target Corporation

Case No.: 2017-CV-317411

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions and Sanctions by Plaintiff Kathy Hughes

Factual and Procedural Background

On October 14, 2015, defendant Target Corporation’s (“Target”) security profiled, approached, and confronted plaintiff Kathy Hughes (“Plaintiff”) while she was shopping in defendant Target’s store on El Camino Real in Santa Clara, causing Plaintiff to suffer personal injuries. (Third Amended Complaint [“TAC”] at ¶GN-1; see also TAC at ¶IT-1.) Defendant Target’s personnel intentionally profiled and confronted Plaintiff because of her race and gender. (Id. at ¶IT-1.) Defendant Target thereafter kicked Plaintiff out of the store and banned her from returning to shop at the store. (Ibid.) In addition, defendant Target improperly trained store security and store management as a means to deny Plaintiff the full and equal privileges/services at the store. (Ibid.)

On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Judicial Council Form TAC against defendant Target alleging causes of action for: (1) general negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On December 3, 2018, defendant Target filed its Answer alleging a general denial and various affirmative defenses.

Discovery Dispute

On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff served defendant Target with form interrogatory no. 17.1 (set three) (“FI”) and requests for admissions (set one) (“RFA”).

On September 19, 2019, Target served unverified responses interposing objections with factual answers. Plaintiff thereafter received verifications on October 28, 2019.

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel regarding objections and responses to FI No. 17.1 and RFA Nos. 1-31. (Watson Decl. at Ex. C.) Plaintiff argued the responses were inadequate and the objections lacked merit.

On November 15, 2019, defense counsel responded to the letter standing by its objections but agreeing to supplement and amend its response to FI No. 17.1. (Watson Decl. at Ex. D.) While the parties continued to meet and confer, they were unable to informally resolve the discovery dispute. Plaintiff therefore seeks intervention from the Court.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to FI and RFA. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 2033.290.) Plaintiff submits requests for judicial notice and for sanctions in conjunction with the motions. Defendant Target filed written opposition. Plaintiff filed reply papers. No trial date has been set.

Motion to Compel Further Response to FI

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1.

Requests for Judicial Notice

In support of the motion, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of her motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 along with the supporting papers. The request is made pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) which allows a court to take judicial notice of court records. While the motion to compel and supporting papers constitute records of the superior court, the request for judicial notice is unnecessary as the Court will evaluate the papers and determine whether to grant the requested relief. To the extent that Plaintiff also requests judicial notice of all prior discovery motions, such motions are not relevant to resolving issues raised in this motion. (See Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 [judicial notice is confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand].)

In reply, Plaintiff filed a supplemental request for judicial notice of the following: (1) Declaration of Counsel Stephen G. Watson in Support of Motion to Vacate Trial Setting Conference, or Continue Trial Setting Conference to a Date After Sufficient Discovery Compliance for Trial Setting, filed December 12, 2019, including all exhibits; and (2) Reply Declaration of Stephen G. Watson, Motion to Vacate Trial Setting Conference or Continue Trial Setting Conference, filed February 6, 2020, and all exhibits, including the separate filing of Confidential Records, produced by defendant Target pursuant to Plaintiff’s Inspection and Production Demands (Set Nos. 1 and 2), confidential, pursuant to Protective Order. These documents however are unnecessary to resolving issues raised by the instant motion.

Accordingly, the requests for judicial notice are DENIED.

Legal Standard

A responding party must provide non-evasive answers to interrogatories that are “as complete and straightforward…to the extent possible,” and, if after a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information they still cannot respond fully to an interrogatory, the responding party must so state in its response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) If the responding party provides incomplete or evasive answers, or objections without merit, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) If a timely motion to compel answers is filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (See Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221 (Coy).)

FI No. 17.1

FI No. 17.1 asks defendant Target to: (a) identify all responses to the RFA that are not unqualified admissions; (b) state all facts on which an identified response is based; (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts and provide their contact information; and (d) identify all documents that support each response and provide the contact information of the person who has each document.

Plaintiff seeks a further response to FI No. 17.1 with respect to RFA Nos. 1-18, 20, 22-29, and 31.

RFA Nos. 1-12, 16-17, 22-29

With respect to RFA Nos. 1-12, 16-17, and 22-29, defendant Target served amended supplemental responses on December 17, 2019, after the filing of the motion to compel. (See Van Der Putten Decl. at ¶ 6, Ex. 5; see also Target’s OPP Sep. Stmt at pp. 2, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25-26, 28, 35, 37, 41-42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52-56.)

When discovery responses are served after a motion to compel is filed, the court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances presented. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) The court might deny the motion to compel as moot, take the matter off-calendar, order the parties to meet and confer, impose sanctions, or examine the responses to determine if they are code-compliant. (Id. at p. 409.)

Having served amended supplemental responses with respect to these RFA, the Court finds the motion, in part, to be moot. In reply, Plaintiff argues the amended supplemental responses are deficient as they do not provide the required information. (See Reply at p. 5.) To that extent, the parties can engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts to resolve any deficiencies with the amended supplemental responses. If those attempts fail, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel further responses in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 1-12, 16-17, and 22-29 is MOOT.

RFA Nos. 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 31

RFA No. 13 provides “ADMIT that there was video taken by defendant Target of plaintiff Kathy Hughes, and Target employee Santiago, the video showing Santiago confronting Hughes in Target’s El Camino Real store on October 14, 2015.”

RFA No. 14 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, Target’s video camera(s) showed the incident that occurred with security personnel Eric Santiago and plaintiff Kathy Hughes at Target’s El Camino Real store.”

RFA No. 15 provides, “ADMIT all Target video footage showing the incident that occurred between Target security personnel, Eric Santiago, and plaintiff Kathy Hughes in Target’s El Camino Real Store, on October 14, 2015, was destroyed by Target.”

RFA No. 18 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, while in Target’s El Camino Real store, customer Kathy Hughes did nothing illegal.”

RFA No. 20 provides, “ADMIT that Kathy Hughes, prior to October 14, 2015, had never done anything illegal at a Target store.”

RFA No. 31 provides, “ADMIT that prior to this incident of October 14, 2015, occurring between Target’s El Camino store security employee Eric Santiago and plaintiff Kathy Hughes, Kathy Hughes never had any contact with any Target security person.”

As stated above, FI No. 17.1 , subdivision (b) requires defendant Target to state all facts on which an identified response is based. With respect to these RFA, defendant Target submits the following response to subdivision (b): “Responding party lacks sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the request and on that basis denies the request.” (See Target’s OPP Sep. Stmt. at pp. 30-31, 33, 38, 40, 57.) This answer is evasive and non-responsive as it does not directly address whether defendant Target has any facts in support of subdivision (b). Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code-compliant further response as to FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 31.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 31 is GRANTED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFA

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 1-16, 18, 20, 23-29, and 31.

Requests for Judicial Notice

In support of the motion, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of her motion to compel further responses to RFA along with the supporting papers and all prior discovery motions. In reply, Plaintiff makes a supplemental request for judicial notice of the same documents identified above on the motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1. For the reasons stated above, the requests for judicial notice are DENIED.

Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

RFA Nos. 1-5

RFA No. 1 provides, “ADMIT that prior to, and on October 14, 2015, Eric Santiago, while working as a security employee of defendant Target, at defendant’s El Camino Real Target store where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred, was authorized by defendant Target to issue verbal trespass banning notices to customers of the El Camino Real Target store.”

RFA No. 2 provides, “ADMIT that prior to this incident on October 14, 2015, defendant Target’s security personnel, Eric Santiago, while working in security, had issued verbal trespass banning notices to Target’s El Camino Real store customers.”

RFA No. 3 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, the issuing of verbal trespass banning notices to customers by Target security employee Eric Santiago while working in defendant Target’s El Camino Real Target store where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred, was authorized by Target management.”

RFA No. 4 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, the issuing of verbal trespass banning notices by Target security personnel Eric Santiago while working in defendant Target’s El Camino Real store where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred, was in accordance with, and pursuant to, Target’s policies and procedures.”

RFA No. 5 provides, “ADMIT that in the year 2015, up to and including October 14, 2015, the issuing of verbal trespass banning notices by Target security personnel Eric Santiago while working in defendant Target’s El Camino Real store where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred, was in accordance with, and pursuant to, Target’s policies and procedures.”

Defendant Target objects to these requests on grounds that the phrase “verbal trespass banning notices” is vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, and lacks foundation. It is not entirely clear what Plaintiff means when using the phrase “verbal trespass banning notices.” Plaintiff submits deposition testimony from Eric Santiago which refers only to “verbal trespass notices” as opposed to “verbal trespass banning notices.” (See Watson Decl. at Ex. G [Santiago Depo at pp. 143:3-6, 144:23-25, 145:1-3, 148:2-12].) Nevertheless, the phrase does not appear to be entirely unintelligible as defendant Target acknowledges in its responses that Santiago never issued trespass notices of any kind to the Plaintiff. (See Target’s OPP Sep. Stmt. at pp. 4, 8, 11, 15, 18.) Accordingly, the objections are overruled.

Without waiving objections, defendant Target provides factual responses admitting and denying the requests in part. These factual responses however are evasive and non-responsive to the call of the question. For example, with respect to RFA No. 2, defendant Target is asked to admit whether Santiago issued verbal trespass banning notices to Target customers. In response, Target admits only that Santiago verbally asked customers to leave the store which is non-responsive. As a reminder, the code requires that each answer in response to an RFA shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) Defendant Target provides similar evasive responses to RFA Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5. If, as Target suggests, that Santiago did not issue any such notices, it can simply state and deny the request. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to code compliant further responses.

Therefore, the motion to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 1-5 is GRANTED.

RFA Nos. 6 and 8

RFA No. 6 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, Target’s security personnel Eric Santiago was working in Target’s El Camino Real store, did not have the authority to issue written trespass banning notices to Target’s El Camino Real store customers.”

RFA No. 8 provides, “ADMIT that in the year 2015 up to and including October 14, 2015, Target’s security personnel Eric Santiago working in Target’s El Camino Real store did not have the authority to issue written trespass banning notices to Target’s El Camino Real store customers.”

Defendant Target objects to these requests on grounds they are vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, lack foundation, and seek information that is not relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Target fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. (See Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221 [if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on responding party to justify any objection]; see also Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 [the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting discovery].) However, without waiving objections, defendant Target admits that Santiago was not authorized to issue a written trespass notice. Plaintiff fails to explain or even address why this factual response is inadequate. As a consequence, no further response is required.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 6 and 8 is DENIED.

RFA Nos. 7 and 9

RFA No. 7 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, a written trespass banning notice issued solely by Target security employee Eric Santiago, to a Target customer at defendant Target’s El Camino Real’s store where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred, would be in violation of Target’s policies and procedures.”

RFA No. 9 provides, “ADMIT in the year 2015 up to and including October 14, 2015, a written trespass banning notice issued solely by Target security employee Eric Santiago to a Target customer at defendant Target’s El Camino Real store where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred, would be in violation of Target’s policies and procedures.”

Defendant Target objects to these requests on grounds they are vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, lack foundation, and seek information that is not relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Target fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Without waiving objections, defendant Target admits that Santiago was not authorized to issue a written trespass notice. This response is evasive as it does not address whether issuing such a notice would be a violation of Target’s policies and procedures. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to code compliant further responses.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 7 and 9 is GRANTED.

RFA Nos. 10-11

RFA No. 10 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, all acts of, and all conduct of Target security personnel Eric Santiago in Santiago’s contacts with Kathy Hughes at Target’s El Camino Real store, were authorized by Target management.”

RFA No. 11 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, all acts of and all conduct of Target security personnel Eric Santiago with Kathy Hughes, followed all Target’s policies and procedures.”

Defendant Target objects to these requests on grounds that the phrase “all acts of, and all conduct of” is vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad, lacks foundation and speculative. The Court here sustains the objections as to this phrase, as used in RFA Nos. 10-11, as being vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and speculative. As a consequence, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 10 and 11 is DENIED.

RFA No. 12

RFA No. 12 provides, “ADMIT that Target’s security employee Eric Santiago, before October 14, 2015, training included issuing verbal trespass banning notices to Target customers at the Target El Camino Real store, where this incident with Kathy Hughes occurred.”

The motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 12 is GRANTED for the same reasons stated above with respect to RFA Nos. 1-5.

RFA Nos. 13-14

RFA No. 13 provides, “ADMIT that there was video taken by defendant Target of plaintiff Kathy Hughes, and Target employee Santiago, the video showing Santiago confronting Hughes in Target’s El Camino Real store on October 14, 2015.”

RFA No. 14 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, Target’s video camera(s) showed the incident that occurred with security personnel Eric Santiago and plaintiff Kathy Hughes at Target’s El Camino Real store.”

Defendant Target objects to these requests on grounds that the phrase “video taken” is vague and ambiguous and the requests are compound, lack foundation, call for speculation and assume facts. Target fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. However, without waiving objections, defendant Target denies each request. (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at pp. 21-23.) Having done so, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 13 and 14 is DENIED.

RFA No. 15

RFA No. 15 provides, “ADMIT all Target video footage showing the incident that occurred between Target security personnel, Eric Santiago, and plaintiff Kathy Hughes in Target’s El Camino Real store, on October 14, 2015, was destroyed by Target.”

Defendant Target objects to the request on grounds it lacks foundation and calls for speculation. Target fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Without waiving objections, defendant Target provides the following factual response:

“[R]esponding party lacks information and belief whether any camera captured the interactions between Mr. Santiago and plaintiff, and whether any such surveillance camera were operating on the date of the incident. In addition, the term ‘destroyed’ connotes intentionality on the part of Target personnel, which Target denies.”

(See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at p. 24.)

Defendant Target here should clarify its response to RFA No. 15. “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that 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, subd. (c).) To the extent that defendant Target has no video footage of the incident between Plaintiff and Santiago, it should first state that a reasonable inquiry has been made. Target should also clarify, as it has in opposition, that no video footage has been destroyed. (See Target’s OPP Sep. Stmt. at pp. 45-46.) With this in mind, Plaintiff is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 15 is GRANTED.

RFA Nos. 16, 18, 20

RFA No. 16 provides, “ADMIT there was audio taken by defendant Target which audio included the incident that occurred on October 14, 2015, between Target security personnel, Eric Santiago, and plaintiff Kathy Hughes.”

RFA No. 18 provides, “ADMIT that on October 14, 2015, while in Target’s El Camino Real store, customer Kathy did nothing illegal.”

RFA No. 20 provides, “ADMIT that Kathy Hughes, prior to October 14, 2015, had never done anything illegal at a Target store.”

Defendant Target objects to these requests on grounds they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, lack foundation and call for speculation. The objections do not appear to be well-taken and thus they are overruled. However, without waiving objections, defendant Target denies each request. Having done so, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 16, 18, and 20 is DENIED.

RFA No. 23

RFA No. 23 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target destroyed video footage showing the length and time plaintiff Kathy Hughes was in distress at the El Camino Real store after being confronted by security employee Eric Santiago.”

Defendant Target objects to the request on grounds it lacks foundation, assumes facts and the term “distress” is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. The objections do not appear to be well-taken and thus they are overruled. The response also does not clearly identify what defendant Target admits or denies from RFA No. 23. If, as defendant Target suggests in opposition, that it did not destroy any video footage, it should clearly state in a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 23 is GRANTED.

RFA No. 24

RFA No. 24 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target destroyed video of Kathy Hughes in the Target store on October 14, 2015, from the time Santiago and Beagle went to the Asset Protection Office until Kathy Hughes left the Target store.”

The motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 24 is GRANTED for the same reasons stated above with respect to RFA No. 23.

RFA Nos. 25-26

RFA No. 25 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target on October 14, 2015, had no tracking of security Eric Santiago confronting and/or contacting a Target customer because of the customer’s sex and/or ethnicity.”

RFA No. 26 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target in the year 2015 and up to and including October 14, 2015, had no tracking of security Eric Santiago confronting and/or contacting a Target customer because of the customer’s sex and/or ethnicity.”

Defendant Target objects in part to these requests on grounds they are compound, overbroad, lack foundation and assume facts. Target fails to justify these objections in opposition and thus they are overruled. The Court however sustains the objections to the phrase “tracking of security Eric Santiago” as vague and ambiguous as it is not clear what Plaintiff intends by this phrase. To the extent that Plaintiff intended to determine whether defendant Target kept a record of such things, Target admitted it does not compile information about gender or ethnicity of store guests who had interactions with Santiago. Plaintiff fails to explain or even address why this factual response is inadequate. (See Plaintiff’s Sep. Stmt. at pp. 32-34.) As a consequence, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 25-26 is DENIED.

RFA No. 27

RFA No. 27 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target has no way to track how many verbal trespass banning notices Target security personnel Eric Santiago issued to customers of Target’s El Camino Real store.”

The motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 24 is GRANTED for the same reasons stated above with respect to RFA Nos. 1-5.

RFA Nos. 28-29

RFA No. 28 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target has no way to track the gender of the individuals receiving verbal trespass banning notice from Target security personnel Eric Santiago at the El Camino Real store.”

RFA No. 29 provides, “ADMIT that defendant Target has no way to track the ethnicity of the individuals receiving verbal trespass banning notices issued by Target security personnel Eric Santiago at the El Camino Real store.”

The motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 28-29 is DENIED for the same reasons stated above with respect to RFA Nos. 25-26.

RFA No. 31

RFA No. 31 provides, “ADMIT that prior to this incident of October 14, 2015, occurring between Target’s El Camino Real store security employee Eric Santiago and plaintiff Kathy Hughes, Kathy Hughes never had any contact with any Target security person.”

Defendant Target objects to this request on grounds it is overbroad and calls for speculation. The objections do not appear to be well-taken and thus they are overruled. However, without waiving objections, defendant Target denies the request. Having done so, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RFA No. 31 is DENIED.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks an award of sanctions in conjunction with the motions to compel. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for admissions, 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), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

As a procedural matter, “[a] request for sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) The notices of motion here are deficient as they fail to identify whom Plaintiff is seeking sanctions and the type of sanction sought. Moreover, the Court finds defendant Target was substantially justified in part in opposing the motions.

Accordingly, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

Disposition

The requests for judicial notice are DENIED.

The motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 1-12, 16-17, and 22-29 is MOOT.

The motion to compel a further response to FI No. 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 31 is GRANTED. Defendant Target shall serve Plaintiff with a verified, code-compliant further response, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 23, 24, and 27 is GRANTED. Defendant Target shall serve Plaintiff with verified, code-compliant further responses, without objections, within 20 calendar days of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to RFA Nos. 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31 is DENIED.

The request for sanctions is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the Order.