2016-00200140-CU-OE

Nichole Mifsud vs. Mike Paris

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Form 2. Special 3. Production

Filed By: Howard, Colleen R.

** If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the requesting party shall inform the court and opposing counsel of the specific discovery request(s) or issue(s) on which oral argument is sought. **

Defendant Mike Paris’ (Paris) motion for an order compelling further responses to his second sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories and document requests is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Overview

In this employment dispute, Plaintiff Misfud previously moved for a protective order relieving her of any obligation to respond to the subject discovery. As to the interrogatories and document requests currently at issue, the motion was denied.

Discussion

Preliminarily, the court notes that Misfud served some amended responses after Paris filed the motion. Paris became entitled to a ruling once the motion was made. (CCP § 1005.5.) Accordingly, the court expresses no opinion about the sufficiency of any amended responses served after Paris filed the motion.

Form Interrogatory 203.1 GRANTED

The objections are overruled, and Misfud must provide an amended response that strictly complies with CCP §§ 2030.210, 2030.220 and 2030.250, except that no objections may be raised. The amended response shall be organized in the same subparts as those in the interrogatory.

In her original response, Misfud goes to some lengths to explain that the information is equally available. She cites deposition transcripts and other discovery and then purports to describe some of the information that can be found in these sources. The description includes information that does not respond to the call of the interrogatory. Misfud’s approach is impermissible, and her objection that the information is equally available is overruled like the other objections.

Form Interrogatory 217.1 DENIED

Paris failed to include the requests for admissions in his separate statement and thus failed to comply with CRC 3.1345(c). The court is unable to assess the sufficiency of response, and no further response is required.

Special Interrogatories 19-21, 23-36, 38, 41 GRANTED

The objections are overruled, and Misfud must provide amended responses that strictly comply with CCP §§ 2030.210, 2030.220 and 2030.250, except that no objections may be raised.

Special Interrogatories 39, 40 DENIED

Misfud’s objections that her attorney’s fees incurred and hours worked in this case are outside the scope of discovery at this time are sustained. No further responses are required.

Document Requests 4-6 DENIED

Misfud asserts that she does not possess or have in her custody responsive

documents that have not already been produced or which are equally available to Paris. This is a sufficient response, and no further responses are required.

Sanctions

Given the mixed results of the motion, no monetary sanctions are imposed.

Disposition

The motion is granted in part and denied in part on the terms above. Where further responses are ordered, Misfud shall serve them no later than 12/10/18.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or further notice is required.