30-2013-00645104
1. Motion by Defendant Able Acquisition, Inc. for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatory [Employment] No. 204.6(c) from Plaintiff Trejo:

Defendant Able Acquisition, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Teresa Trejo to Provide Further Responses to Employment Form Interrogatory No. 204.6(c) is GRANTED.
The burden is on Plaintiff to justify the objections raised. (See Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion and justify the objections raised. In addition, the substantive response is insufficient in that the date of “October 15, 2015” is in the future and patently erroneous. Further responses are due within 21 days.
Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit Verifications With Respect to Her Initial Response and Supplemental Response to Defendant’s First Set of Special Interrogatories is also GRANTED. Responses must be verified by the client. (CCP § 2030.250(a).) Where verification is required, an unverified response is ineffective and is equivalent of no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635.) Verifications are due within 21 days.

Monetary sanctions are issued against Plaintiff and her attorneys of record jointly and severally in the amount of in the amount of $775.00 payable within 30 days.

Moving party is to give notice.

2. Motion by Defendant Able Acquisition, Inc. for Order Compelling Responses to Requests for Production from Plaintiff Trejo:

Defendant Able Acquisition, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Teresa Trejo Provide Further Responses to Its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, and to Produce Responsive Documents, is GRANTED.

RPDs Nos. 3, 7-13, and 17-21: The burden is on Plaintiff to justify the objections raised. (See Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Plaintiff has failed to justify the objections raised, and good cause has been established. Plaintiff is therefore compelled to provide further responses and to produce responsive documents.

RPD No. 23: Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition and justify the objections raised. With respect to the substantive response provided, the court finds that the substantive response is deficient and does not comply with Code. Plaintiff merely recites the language of CCP § 2031.230 in her response and fails to specify why the party is unable to comply. Moreover, Plaintiff refers to a letter of termination dated 10/12/11 in response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 38 and 40. The response to the current RPD fails to account for this letter. Moreover, good cause has been established. Thus, Plaintiff is compelled to provide a further response that complies with Code.

RPD No. 24: Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition and justify the objections raised. In addition, with respect to the privacy objection raised, the information sought is directly relevant and is essential to Defendant’s defense and proof of Plaintiff’s loss of future earnings. In addition, the need for the information sought outweighs Plaintiff’s privacy interest. Further, the motion is unopposed, good cause has been established, and the information sought does not appear to be available through less intrusive means. Thus, the motion to compel Plaintiff to provide a further response is granted.

Monetary sanctions are issued against Plaintiff and her attorneys of record jointly and severally in the amount of in the amount of $2,490.00 payable within 30 days.

Further responses under oath and the production of documents, are all due within 21 days.

Moving party is to give notice.

3. Motion by Plaintiff Trejo for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories:

Plaintiff Teresa Trejo’s Motion to Compel Defendant Able Acquisition, Int. to Provide Further Responses To Her First Set of Special Interrogatories Is GRANTED in part and is DENIED in part.

The motion is MOOT with respect to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-9, 13 and 14. On 3/26/14 (after the instant motion was filed), Defendant served supplemental responses with respect to these special interrogatories.

The Motion to Compel a Further Response as to Special Interrogatory No. 18 is GRANTED.
(a) Defendant is to produce a privilege log within 30-days.
(b) With respect to the substantive response provided, CCP § 2030.220(a), (b) provides that 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.” In addition, CCP § 2030.220(c) provides: “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.” In addition, a party must furnish information available from sources under his control. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.)
Here, the information sought (if such information exists) appears to be under Defendant’s control. Thus, notwithstanding the documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, Defendant is compelled to provide a further response that complies with CCP § 2030.220.
(c) Sanctions:
The meet and confer efforts by Plaintiff’s counsel were sufficient. At minimum, Defendant should have agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file the instant motion during the meet and confer process.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record are GRANTED. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,560.00. The breakdown is as follows: (1) 6 hours preparing the moving papers at $250/hr.; and (2) $60 in filing fee. The total amount requested, the hourly rate, and the hours claimed are all reasonable. Therefore, the total amount requested is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record is GRANTED jointly and severally in the amount of $1,560.00.

The privilege log and further responses are due within 21 days; the sanctions are due and payable within 30 days.

Moving party is to give notice.