Case Name: Benedict Lobo v. Intel Mobile Communications North America Inc.
Case No.: 2017-CV-311668

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Employment, and Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions by Plaintiff Benedict Lobo

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an employment case. Plaintiff Benedict Lobo (“Plaintiff”) began working as a Software Engineer for defendant Intel Mobile Communications North America Inc. (“Intel”) in October 2014. During his employment, Plaintiff contends he was subjected to discrimination based on his age and ancestry and that he was wrongfully discharged. The operative first amended complaint alleges claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and emotional distress.

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff served Intel with the following discovery: (1) Form Interrogatories – General (set one) (“FI – General”); (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment (set one) (“FI – Employment”); and Special Interrogatories (set one) (“SI”). (Masoom, Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4, 7.) Intel thereafter served discovery responses interposing objections with factual answers. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 6, 8.)

Following receipt of discovery responses, Plaintiff’s attorney sent meet and confer letters to defense counsel addressing deficiencies in the responses. (Masoom Decl., ¶¶ 9, 11.) In doing so, Plaintiff argued the substantive responses were evasive and the objections raised lacked merit and thus requested supplemental discovery answers. (Ibid.) In response, defendant Intel stood by its objections and did not serve any supplemental discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Since the parties were unable to resolve this discovery dispute, Plaintiff now seeks intervention from the Court.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FI – General, FI – Employment, and SI because the answers are incomplete and the objections raised are meritless. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Plaintiff also seeks an award of monetary sanctions in conjunction with the motion. Defendant Intel filed written opposition. No trial date has been set.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to FI – General

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to FI – General Nos. 12.1, 12.2., 12.3, and 12.6 because the objections raised are without merit.

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 – General No. 12.1

FI – General No. 12.1 asks defendant Intel to state the name, address, and telephone of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made statements at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who Intel (or anyone working on its behalf) claims has knowledge of the INCIDENT.

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory in part on grounds it is compound and overbroad. Intel does not justify these objections in its 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].)

Defendant Intel also objects on the ground that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous as it is being used in this case. According to Plaintiff’s FI – General, the term INCIDENT is defined as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” (Masoom, Decl., Ex. 2.) This is the definition provided by the judicial council form. As Intel points out, this definition is confusing as this is not a personal injury or breach of contract case but rather an employment action involving claims for discrimination, harassment, and emotional distress. Thus, it is unclear from this definition, what “incident” is being referenced by the Plaintiff in order for Intel to properly respond to this interrogatory. The Court notes that Plaintiff did not provide any alternative definition for “INCIDENT” when preparing his FI – General. Furthermore, Plaintiff admits the term “incident” is broad and may involve a number of circumstances giving rise to this action. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 2.) Based on the foregoing, the Court sustains the vague and ambiguous objection. If Plaintiff seeks a response, he should define the term “INCIDENT” in a manner consistent with the facts of this case and re-serve his discovery request.
Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI – General No. 12.1 is DENIED.

FI – General No. 12.2

FI – General No. 12.2 asks defendant Intel whether it has interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT and, if so, to state their name, contact information, and the date of the interview. Like FI – General No. 12.1, this interrogatory incorporates use of the term “INCIDENT” which, for reasons stated above, the Court finds to be vague and ambiguous as applied to this case. Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to FI – General No. 12.2 is DENIED.

FI – General No. 12.3

FI – General No. 12.3 asks defendant Intel whether it has obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT and, if so, to state their name, contact information and the name of the person who obtained the statement.

Like the prior interrogatories, FI – General No. 12.3 incorporates use of the term “INCIDENT” which, for reasons stated above, the Court finds to be vague and ambiguous as applied to this case. In addition, despite the objection, defendant Intel provides a substantive response of “no” to this interrogatory. Plaintiff fails to explain why this substantive response is improper either in his separate statement or memorandum of points and authorities. The Court therefore concludes no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI – General No. 12.3 is DENIED.

FI – General No. 12.6

FI – General No. 12.6 asks defendant Intel whether it has made a report concerning the INCIDENT. If so, the interrogatory includes subparts requesting information about the report and the person who made the report.

Like the prior interrogatories, FI – General No. 12.6 incorporates use of the term “INCIDENT” which, for reasons stated above, the Court finds to be vague and ambiguous as applied to this case. In addition, despite the objection, defendant Intel provides a substantive response of “no” to this interrogatory. Plaintiff fails to explain why this substantive response is improper either in his separate statement or memorandum of points and authorities. The Court therefore concludes no further response is required.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to FI – General No. 12.6 is DENIED.

Disposition

The motion to compel a further response to FI – General Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.6 is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to FI – Employment

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to FI – Employment Nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.2, 209.2, 215.1, and 215.2 because the answers are incomplete and the objections lack merit.

FI – Employment No. 201.1

FI – Employment No. 201.1 asks defendant Intel if the employee (presumably Plaintiff) was involved in a termination. If so, the interrogatory includes subparts (a) – (d) requesting information related to any such termination.

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds the question called for a legal conclusion, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and that certain terms are vague and ambiguous. Intel does not justify these objections in its opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Despite these objections, defendant Intel provides a substantive response of “no” to this interrogatory, affirmatively stating that “Plaintiff’s employment was not terminated-Plaintiff resigned and never returned to work.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 7.) Even though Plaintiff disagrees with the response, the Court finds that defendant Intel has answered the question. Therefore, no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 201.1 is DENIED.

FI – Employment No. 201.2

FI – Employment No. 201.2 asks defendant Intel if there are any facts to support Plaintiff’s termination that were first discovered after the termination. Intel did not object to the interrogatory but instead provides a substantive response stating “Plaintiff’s employment was not terminated-Plaintiff resigned and never returned to work.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 8.) This response is consistent with Intel’s earlier answer to FI – Employment No. 201.1 where it states that Plaintiff was not involved in a termination. Plaintiff disagrees with this answer claiming that he was subject to termination. (Ibid.) Such disagreement however is not basis to compel a further response. Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 201.2 is DENIED.

FI – Employment No. 201.3

FI – Employment No. 201.3 asks defendant Intel if there were any other adverse actions taken, and if so, to respond to subparts (a) through (d). Intel objects on grounds the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Intel does not justify these objections in its opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Despite the objections, defendant Intel provides a substantive response of “no” to this interrogatory. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 9.) Again, Plaintiff simply disagrees with the response which is not a basis for compelling a further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 201.3 is DENIED.

FI – Employment No. 201.4

FI – Employment No. 201.4 asks defendant Intel if the termination or adverse employment actions taken in Nos. 201.1 through 201.3 were based in whole or in part on Plaintiff’s job performance. If so, Intel must address questions in subparts (a) through (f). Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds the question is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and assumes facts not in evidence. Intel does not justify these objections in its opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Despite these objections, defendant Intel provides a substantive response as follows: “Plaintiff’s employment was not terminated-Plaintiff resigned and never returned to work.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 10.) This answer is consistent with Intel’s earlier responses to FI – Employment Nos. 201.1 and 201.3 where it stated that it did not terminate Plaintiff or engage in any adverse employment actions. Again, Plaintiff simply disagrees with the answer which is not a basis for compelling a further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 201.4 is DENIED.

FI – Employment No. 201.5

FI – Employment No. 201.5 asks defendant Intel whether it hired anyone to replace Plaintiff after he was terminated or demoted. If so, the question seeks the name of the employee that was hired, their job title, and contact information.

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds the information is protected by third-party privacy rights and assumes facts not in evidence. Intel does not justify these objections in its opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Despite these objections, defendant Intel provided a substantive response as follows: “Plaintiff’s employment was not terminated-Plaintiff resigned and never returned to work.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 11.) This answer is consistent with Intel’s earlier response to FI – Employment No. 201.1 where it stated that it did not terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff fails to explain why this substantive response is improper either in his separate statement or memorandum of points and authorities. Instead, Plaintiff provides a legal discussion regarding character evidence which is not a basis to compel a further response. (Id. at pp. 11-12.)

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 201.5 is DENIED.

FI – Employment No. 201.6

FI – Employment No. 201.6 asks defendant Intel whether any person performed Plaintiff’s former job duties after his termination or demotion. The same arguments addressed to FI – Employment No. 201.5 also apply to this interrogatory. Therefore, for reasons stated above, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 201.6 is DENIED.

FI – Employment No. 207.2

FI – Employment No. 207.2 asks whether Plaintiff complained to defendant Intel about any unlawful conduct alleged in the pleadings. If so, the question seeks information related to those complaints in subparts (a) through (j).

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds that it is compound, vague, and ambiguous. Intel does not justify these objections in its opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Defendant Intel also provides a substantive response to the interrogatory which includes dates and the names of witnesses. Plaintiff however persuasively argues that Intel does not fully address the questions raised in the subparts. For example, while Intel does provide names, it does not submit contact information as requested in subparts (d), (e), and (f). Nor does Intel identify any documents as requested in subpart (i). Having failed to fully answer the interrogatory, Plaintiff is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 207.2 is GRANTED.

FI – Employment No. 209.2

FI – Employment No. 209.2 asks whether any employee, within the last 10 years, has filed a civil action against defendant Intel regarding his or her employment. If so, Intel must answer subparts (a) through (d) which address details related to any such civil actions.

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory in part on the ground that it is overbroad as it is not limited in scope. This argument is persuasive as the answer would encompass any and all claims made by any Intel employee over a 10 year period. Thus, Intel contends Plaintiff is not similarly situated to all other Intel employees who filed a civil action against the corporation regarding his or her employment. Plaintiff appears to seek a further response to support a claim for age discrimination. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at pp. 15-16.) This interrogatory however, as drafted, is not limited to civil actions made against Intel for age discrimination. As the interrogatory is impermissibly overbroad, the Court sustains the objection on this ground.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 209.2 is DENIED.

FI – Employment Nos. 215.1

FI – Employment No. 215.1 requests defendant Intel to identify anyone it interviewed about the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION along with subparts (a) through (c) addressing who conducted the interview and when.

Defendant Intel objects in part to this interrogatory on the ground that it violates third-party privacy rights. This objection is not justified in opposition and thus the objection is overruled.

Defendant Intel also objects to this interrogatory on grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as Plaintiff fails to appropriately define the term “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.” For purposes of this interrogatory, “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” means “any termination, suspension, demotion, reprimand, loss of pay, failure or refusal to hire, failure or refusal to promote, or other action, or failure that adversely affects the employee’s rights or interests and which is alleged in the pleadings.” (Masoom, Decl., Exhibit 3.) Rather than observe this definition, defendant Intel defines “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” to mean “resignation” and provides a substantive response claiming “Defendant is unaware of any non-privileged interviews relating to plaintiff’s resignation.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 16.) Such a response is evasive and not in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, defendant Intel objects on grounds that any response would violate the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

The attorney-client privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer. (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 (Costco).) “[T]he privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.” (Gordon v. Super. Ct. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1557.) “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citations.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Costco, supra, at p. 733.)

In addition, “[t]he attorney work product doctrine absolutely protects from discovery writings that contain an ‘attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.’ [Citation.]” (League of California Cities v. Super. Ct. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 976, 993.) “The purpose of the attorney work product doctrine is to preserve the rights of attorneys in the preparation of their cases and to prevent attorneys from taking advantage of the industry and creativity of opposing counsel.” (Ibid.) “Whether specific material is protected work product must be resolved on a case-by-case basis.” (Ibid.) “The person claiming protection under the attorney work product doctrine bears the burden of proving the preliminary facts to show the doctrine applies.” (Ibid.)

In support, defendant Intel cites Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214, 217, which found that a list of potential witnesses interviewed by opposing counsel is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine because it “would necessarily reflect counsel’s evaluation of the case by revealing which witnesses or persons who claimed knowledge of the incident . . . counsel deemed important enough to interview.” Based on Intel’s arguments, it is asserting the protections afforded to attorney work product that “reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).)

Defendant Intel however has not established preliminary facts of any attorney-client relationship which existed at the time of the interviews. By its plain language, FI – Employment No. 215.1 seeks interviews by Intel, not its counsel, relating to the “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.” If there are any such interviews, they would not be subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If no such interviews exist, defendant Intel should so state in a code complaint further response. Therefore, the objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are overruled.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 215.1 is GRANTED.

FI – Employment No. 215.2

FI – Employment No. 215.2 requests defendant Intel to identify anyone that obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION. If so, Intel must answer questions provided in subparts (a) through (d).

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds raised in FI – Employment No. 215.1. Therefore, for reasons states above, the objections are overruled. Subject to and without waiving objections, Intel provides a substantive response of “no” assuming that “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” refers to Plaintiff’s resignation of employment. This answer is non-responsive as the term “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” is not defined to include Plaintiff’s resignation. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment No. 215.2 is GRANTED.

Disposition

The motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment Nos. 207.2, 215.1, and 215.2 is GRANTED. Defendant Intel shall serve verified code compliant further responses, without objections, to Plaintiff within 20 calendar days of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to FI – Employment Nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6 and 209.2 is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to SI

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to SI Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18 because the answers are incomplete and the objections raised are without merit.

SI No. 5

SI No. 5 asks defendant Intel to identify the person(s) immediately responsible for the supervision and direction of Plaintiff during his employment. Defendant Intel objects to the interrogatory on grounds it is vague and ambiguous with respect to certain terms. Intel does not justify these objections in its opposition and thus the objections are overruled.

Despite the objections, defendant Intel provides a substantive response listing the names of Plaintiff’s managers. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 18.) Plaintiff argues the substantive response is inadequate as it fails to provide the time periods and jobsite of supervision for each manager. (Id. at p. 19.) This contention lacks merit as the interrogatory only asks for information regarding the identities of persons responsible for the supervision and direction of Plaintiff during his employment. Defendant Intel has provided such information and therefore no further response is required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 5 is DENIED.

SI No. 6

SI No. 6 asks defendant Intel to identify, by date and location, each worksite it assigned to Plaintiff. Defendant Intel did not object but instead provides the following substantive response: “During his employment, Plaintiff was assigned to the Intel Campus at SCI@Non-office. He also worked at client sites.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 19.) At a minimum, the response is deficient as Intel fails to provide the dates requested by the interrogatory. Moreover, it is unclear what the location is for the “client sites” included in Intel’s substantive response. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 6 is GRANTED.

SI No. 7

SI No. 7 asks defendant Intel to identify the age of each employee it hired during the WORK PERIOD in a position similar to Plaintiff’s. Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory in part on grounds that it is unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. These objections are not justified in opposition and therefore the objections are overruled.

Defendant Intel also objects on the ground that the interrogatory is overbroad as the term “position similar to Plaintiff’s” is vague and ambiguous. These objections do not appear to be well taken. Plaintiff is a software engineer and thus positions “similar” would likely include the ages of other software engineers employed by Intel. In addition, the “WORK PERIOD” covers a four year period of time which does not seem to be unreasonably overbroad for purposes of this lawsuit. The Court therefore overrules these objections and orders Intel to provide a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 7 is GRANTED.

SI No. 10

SI No. 10 asks defendant Intel to identify all person(s) it has communicated with regarding Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination alleged in the complaint. Defendant Intel objects to the interrogatory in part on grounds it is compound, vague and ambiguous. These objections were not justified in opposition and thus the objections are overruled. Additionally, Intel did not object to SI No. 10 on the ground that the interrogatory is overbroad in its original responses, and, thus, such an objection raised for the first time in opposition to this motion is waived. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 [waiver occurs where the responding party fails to timely raise an objection in its initial response].)

Defendant Intel also objects to SI No. 10 on grounds it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Intel however fails to provide any substantive argument, supported by legal authority, to justify these objections. (See Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 784-785 [“[w]hen [a party] fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived”]; see also Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 612, 619, fn. 2 [“a point which is merely suggested by a party’s counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion”].) These objections are therefore overruled and Plaintiff is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 10 is GRANTED.

SI No. 11

SI No. 11 asks defendant Intel to describe the nature of its communications with other people regarding Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination. In moving to compel a further response, Plaintiff simply recites language from Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 which applies to discovery with respect to the identity of witnesses. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 22.) This contention lacks merit as the interrogatory does not pertain to the identity of witnesses, but rather to the nature of communications between Intel and other people with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination. This argument therefore does not provide a basis to compel a further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 11 is DENIED.

SI No. 12

SI No. 12 asks defendant Intel to identify its policies that relate to addressing complaints of discrimination during the subject work period. Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. These objections are not justified in opposition and therefore the objections are overruled.

Despite these objections, defendant Intel also provides the following substantive response: “Applicable policies relating to employee procedures for raising complaints of discrimination are included in the Intel Employment Guidelines.” (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 22.) This response however is evasive as it fails to specifically identify the policies of how Intel addresses complaints of discrimination. To the extent that Intel relies on a document, presumably the Intel Employment Guidelines, it must both identify and summarize the document. (See Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 [“[I]f a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.”].) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a code compliant further response.

Consequently, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 12 is GRANTED.

SI No. 13

SI No. 13 asks defendant Intel to describe its policies related to the use of software automation labs for conducting business. Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds it is vague and ambiguous. These objections are not justified in opposition and therefore the objections are overruled. Instead, defendant Intel addresses objections on grounds the interrogatory is irrelevant and overbroad which are improper as they are being raised for the first time in opposition. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a code compliant further response.

Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 13 is GRANTED.

SI No. 14

SI No. 14 asks defendant Intel to identify all individuals with access to the software automation lab(s) for conducting business. Intel objects to this interrogatory on grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. These objections are not justified in opposition and therefore the objections are overruled.

Defendant Intel also objects on the ground that the interrogatory is irrelevant. The relevance objection however is improper as it being raised for the first time in opposition. Finally, Intel objects to the interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad. The fact that Intel is being asked to provide the names of individuals with access to the software automation labs does not appear to be overbroad. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a code compliant further response.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 14 is GRANTED.

SI No. 15

SI No. 15 asks defendant Intel to describe its policies related to reviewing employee performance during Plaintiff’s employment. The same arguments addressed to SI No. 12 also apply to this interrogatory. Therefore, for reasons stated above, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 15 is GRANTED.

SI No. 18

SI No. 18 asks defendant Intel to identify all formal complaints made against the corporation by each employee or former employee in the last 10 years related to any allegation of unlawful conduct.

Defendant Intel objects to this interrogatory in part on grounds it is compound, violates third-party privacy rights and violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. These objections are not justified in opposition and therefore the objections are overruled.

Defendant Intel also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad as it is not limited in scope. This argument is persuasive as the answer would encompass any and all complaints concerning any type of unlawful conduct. This presumably would include complaints for unlawful acts completely unrelated to an action, like this one, based on employment discrimination. Plaintiff’s reason for compelling a further response is curious as he only states that defendant Intel must disclose the age of any software engineer that replaced him. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement at p. 13.) It could be that Plaintiff intends to seek complaints related to age discrimination but the interrogatory, as drafted, has not been limited to such complaints. As the interrogatory is impermissibly overbroad, the Court sustains the objection on this ground.

Therefore, the motion to compel a further response to SI No. 18 is DENIED.

Disposition

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is GRANTED. Defendant Intel shall serve verified code compliant further responses, without objections, to Plaintiff within 20 calendar days of this Order.

The motion to compel a further response to SI Nos. 5, 11, and 18 is DENIED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff’s counsel requests an award of monetary sanctions in support of the motion to compel. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses 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).)

As preliminary matter, “[a] request for a 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 notice of motion is deficient as it fails to identify whether Plaintiff is seeking monetary sanctions against defendant Intel or its counsel. The notice of motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Ibid.) The declaration submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel does not comply with the statute as it does not set forth facts supporting an amount for monetary sanctions. Finally, the Court finds that defendant Intel was at least partially justified in opposing the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of monetary sanctions.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.