Preview
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
2 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180 ELECTRONICALLY
Chief Labor Attorney F I L E D
3 ERIN KUKA, State Bar #275042 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Deputy City Attorney
4 Fox Plaza 06/17/2020
1390 Market Street, 5th Floor Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Deputy Clerk
Telephone: (415) 554-4229
6 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248
E-Mail: erin.kuka@sfcityatty.org
7
8 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13 MARGARITA HERRERA, Case No. CGC-19-578026
14 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY
15 vs. DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN SEPARATE STATEMENT RE RESPONSE TO
FRANCISCO, PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS,
17 SET NO. ONE AND FOR AN AWARD OF A
Defendant. MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST
18 DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,597.50
19 Hearing Date: June 30, 2020
Hearing Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
20 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place: Dept. 302
21
Date Action Filed: July 30, 2019
22 Trial Date: January 25, 2021
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 The following is the text of Defendants’ General Objections incorporated in its Responses to
2 Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. One; the disputed Requests; Defendant’s Responses; the
3 reasons why Plaintiff believes a further response and/or documents should be compelled, and
4 Defendant’s response.
5 DEFENDANT’S INTRODUCTION:
6 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, Defendant City and County of San
7 Francisco (the "City") submits the following objections and responses to the first set of Request for
8 Admissions, Set No. One ("Request"), served by Plaintiff Margarita Herrera ("Herrera"). In
9 responding to the Request, the City does not concede the relevance or materiality of any Request or
10 the subject to which any Request refers. The City's response to each Request is made subject to and
11 without waiving any objections that the City might raise in any proceeding as to the competence,
12 relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility of any of the information referred to in the responses.
13 The City's responses to the Request are based on the facts, information, and documents
14 presently known and available to the City. However, the City has not completed investigating the facts
15 relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action, and has not completed preparing for
16 any proceeding or trial that might be held. Ongoing discovery, investigation, research and analysis
17 may disclose additional facts, add meaning to known facts, establish entirely new factual conclusions
18 or legal contentions, or possibly lead to additions, variations and changes to these responses. Without
19 obligating itself to do so, the City reserves the right to change or supplement these responses as
20 additional facts, information or documents are discovered, revealed, recalled or otherwise ascertained,
21 and as further analysis and research discloses additional facts, documents, contentions or legal theories
22 that might apply. The City expressly reserves the right to provide or introduce as evidence at any
23 proceeding or trial any subsequently discovered information, facts or documents.
24 The City makes these responses in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information as
25 is presently known and available to the City. These responses are not intended, however, to limit,
26 restrict or prejudice the City in further discovery, research or analysis.
27
28 2
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 Communications with current or former City employees, including those identified in these
2 responses, should be made through the City Attorney's Office.
3 In the event that Herrera disagrees with an objection interposed in a response, or believes that a
4 response is insufficient, the City invites Herrera to meet and confer over the issue. The City hereby
5 objects and responds to Herrera's Requests as follows.
6 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY DEFENDANT’S INTRODUCTION SHOULD BE
7 STRUCK:
8 General objections to the entire set of discovery are unauthorized, constitute
9 discovery abuse and can subject the objecting party to sanctions. Korea Data Systems
10 Co. Ltd. V. Sup.Ct. (Amazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 CA4th 1513; 1516. That is
11 because in interjecting boilerplate objections and making each response subject to those
objections, the responding party is not providing a clear communication as to the
12
information/documents it will and will not provide. Indeed, such objections allow the
13
responding party to withhold information and documents subject to those objections, and
14
the receiving party has no way of knowing whether information and documents have
15
been withheld, much less the reasons why such information and/or documents were
16
withheld.
17
DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE:
18
This is an improper issue to raise in a discovery motion, because the parties resolved it via
19
meet and confer. See May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan, attached as Exhibit I to
20
the Kochan Decl. filed ISO Plaintiff’s Motion, p. 1.
21
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
22
Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to engage Plaintiff
23
in the interactive process with respect to her alleged back injury.
24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
25
OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to
26
engage," and "alleged back injury."
27
OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion.
28 3
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
2 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into
3 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves
4 its right to amend this response.
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City
6 responds as follows: Denied.
7 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
8 Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and
9 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken.
10 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE:
11 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in
12 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998).
13 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique
14 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin
15 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”);
16 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14,
17 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the
18 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and
19 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email
20 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s
21 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to
22 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.).
23 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other
24 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and
25 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper,
26 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12.
27
28 4
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
2 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s
3 alleged back injury.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
5 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to
6 accommodate," and "alleged back injury."
7 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion.
8 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
9 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into
10 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves
11 its right to amend this response.
12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City
13 responds as follows: Denied.
14 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
15 1. Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and
16 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken.
17 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE:
18 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in
19 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998).
20 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique
21 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin
22 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”);
23 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14,
24 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the
25 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and
26 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email
27 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s
28 5
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to
2 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.).
3 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other
4 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and
5 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper,
6 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12.
7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
8 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to engage Plaintiff in the
9 interactive process with respect to the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly
10 suffers.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
12 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to
13 engage," and "Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly suffers."
14 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion.
15 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
16 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into
17 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves
18 its right to amend this response.
19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City
20 responds as follows: Denied.
21 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
22 Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and
23 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken.
24 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE:
25 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in
26 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998).
27 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique
28 6
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin
2 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”);
3 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14,
4 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the
5 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and
6 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email
7 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s
8 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to
9 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.).
10 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other
11 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and
12 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper,
13 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
15 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiff with
16 respect to the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly suffers.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
18 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to
19 accommodate," and " Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly suffers."
20 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion.
21 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence.
22 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into
23 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves
24 its right to amend this response.
25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City
26 responds as follows: Denied.
27
28 7
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
1 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
2 Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and
3 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken.
4 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE:
5 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in
6 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998).
7 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique
8 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin
9 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”);
10 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14,
11 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the
12 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and
13 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email
14 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s
15 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to
16 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.).
17 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other
18 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and
19 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper,
20 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12.
21 Dated: June 17, 2020 DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
22 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER
Chief Labor Attorney
23 ERIN KUKA
Deputy City Attorney
24
25
By: Erin Kuka
26 ERIN KUKA
27 Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
28 8
CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx
CASE NO. CGC-19-578026
Preview
1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney 2 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180 ELECTRONICALLY Chief Labor Attorney F I L E D 3 ERIN KUKA, State Bar #275042 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Deputy City Attorney 4 Fox Plaza 06/17/2020 1390 Market Street, 5th Floor Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO 5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Deputy Clerk Telephone: (415) 554-4229 6 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 E-Mail: erin.kuka@sfcityatty.org 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 MARGARITA HERRERA, Case No. CGC-19-578026 14 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY 15 vs. DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN SEPARATE STATEMENT RE RESPONSE TO FRANCISCO, PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, 17 SET NO. ONE AND FOR AN AWARD OF A Defendant. MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST 18 DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,597.50 19 Hearing Date: June 30, 2020 Hearing Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 20 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Dept. 302 21 Date Action Filed: July 30, 2019 22 Trial Date: January 25, 2021 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 The following is the text of Defendants’ General Objections incorporated in its Responses to 2 Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. One; the disputed Requests; Defendant’s Responses; the 3 reasons why Plaintiff believes a further response and/or documents should be compelled, and 4 Defendant’s response. 5 DEFENDANT’S INTRODUCTION: 6 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, Defendant City and County of San 7 Francisco (the "City") submits the following objections and responses to the first set of Request for 8 Admissions, Set No. One ("Request"), served by Plaintiff Margarita Herrera ("Herrera"). In 9 responding to the Request, the City does not concede the relevance or materiality of any Request or 10 the subject to which any Request refers. The City's response to each Request is made subject to and 11 without waiving any objections that the City might raise in any proceeding as to the competence, 12 relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility of any of the information referred to in the responses. 13 The City's responses to the Request are based on the facts, information, and documents 14 presently known and available to the City. However, the City has not completed investigating the facts 15 relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action, and has not completed preparing for 16 any proceeding or trial that might be held. Ongoing discovery, investigation, research and analysis 17 may disclose additional facts, add meaning to known facts, establish entirely new factual conclusions 18 or legal contentions, or possibly lead to additions, variations and changes to these responses. Without 19 obligating itself to do so, the City reserves the right to change or supplement these responses as 20 additional facts, information or documents are discovered, revealed, recalled or otherwise ascertained, 21 and as further analysis and research discloses additional facts, documents, contentions or legal theories 22 that might apply. The City expressly reserves the right to provide or introduce as evidence at any 23 proceeding or trial any subsequently discovered information, facts or documents. 24 The City makes these responses in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information as 25 is presently known and available to the City. These responses are not intended, however, to limit, 26 restrict or prejudice the City in further discovery, research or analysis. 27 28 2 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 Communications with current or former City employees, including those identified in these 2 responses, should be made through the City Attorney's Office. 3 In the event that Herrera disagrees with an objection interposed in a response, or believes that a 4 response is insufficient, the City invites Herrera to meet and confer over the issue. The City hereby 5 objects and responds to Herrera's Requests as follows. 6 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY DEFENDANT’S INTRODUCTION SHOULD BE 7 STRUCK: 8 General objections to the entire set of discovery are unauthorized, constitute 9 discovery abuse and can subject the objecting party to sanctions. Korea Data Systems 10 Co. Ltd. V. Sup.Ct. (Amazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 CA4th 1513; 1516. That is 11 because in interjecting boilerplate objections and making each response subject to those objections, the responding party is not providing a clear communication as to the 12 information/documents it will and will not provide. Indeed, such objections allow the 13 responding party to withhold information and documents subject to those objections, and 14 the receiving party has no way of knowing whether information and documents have 15 been withheld, much less the reasons why such information and/or documents were 16 withheld. 17 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE: 18 This is an improper issue to raise in a discovery motion, because the parties resolved it via 19 meet and confer. See May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan, attached as Exhibit I to 20 the Kochan Decl. filed ISO Plaintiff’s Motion, p. 1. 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 22 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to engage Plaintiff 23 in the interactive process with respect to her alleged back injury. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 25 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to 26 engage," and "alleged back injury." 27 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion. 28 3 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence. 2 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into 3 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves 4 its right to amend this response. 5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City 6 responds as follows: Denied. 7 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 8 Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and 9 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken. 10 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE: 11 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in 12 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998). 13 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique 14 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin 15 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”); 16 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14, 17 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the 18 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and 19 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email 20 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s 21 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to 22 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.). 23 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other 24 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and 25 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper, 26 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12. 27 28 4 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 2 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s 3 alleged back injury. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 5 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to 6 accommodate," and "alleged back injury." 7 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion. 8 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence. 9 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into 10 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves 11 its right to amend this response. 12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City 13 responds as follows: Denied. 14 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 15 1. Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and 16 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken. 17 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE: 18 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in 19 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998). 20 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique 21 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin 22 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”); 23 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14, 24 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the 25 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and 26 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email 27 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s 28 5 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to 2 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.). 3 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other 4 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and 5 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper, 6 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 8 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to engage Plaintiff in the 9 interactive process with respect to the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly 10 suffers. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 12 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to 13 engage," and "Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly suffers." 14 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion. 15 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence. 16 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into 17 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves 18 its right to amend this response. 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City 20 responds as follows: Denied. 21 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 22 Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and 23 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken. 24 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE: 25 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in 26 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998). 27 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique 28 6 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin 2 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”); 3 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14, 4 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the 5 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and 6 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email 7 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s 8 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to 9 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.). 10 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other 11 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and 12 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper, 13 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: 15 Admit that from May 23, 2016 to the present Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiff with 16 respect to the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly suffers. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: 18 OBJECTION: Vague and ambiguous with respect to the meaning of the terms: "failed to 19 accommodate," and " Systemic Lupus Erythematosus from which she allegedly suffers." 20 OBJECTION: Calls for a legal conclusion. 21 OBJECTION: Assumes facts not in evidence. 22 OBJECTION: Premature. Discovery has just commenced, and the City's investigation into 23 Plaintiffs allegations and any relevant underlying facts in this matter is still ongoing. The City reserves 24 its right to amend this response. 25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing preliminary statement and objections, the City 26 responds as follows: Denied. 27 28 7 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026 1 PLAINTIFF’S REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 2 Defendant’s boilerplate unmeritorious objections render its response ambiguous and 3 unenforceable. Thus, all objections should be stricken. 4 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE: 5 This is an improper issue to raise in this motion because Plaintiff did not meet and confer in 6 good faith to resolve the parties’ differences. Obregon v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal.App.4th 424 (1998). 7 Plaintiff never identified the objections she believes to be improper; Plaintiff only made oblique 8 reference to “boilerplate” objections. See February 11, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin 9 Kuka (Exhibit A to the Declaration of Deborah Kochan ISO Plaintiff’s Motion (“Kochan Decl.”); 10 February 28, 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit B to Kochan Decl.); April 14, 11 2020 email from Deborah Kochan to Erin Kuka (Exhibit G to Kochan Decl.). This is despite the 12 City’s repeated requests that Plaintiff identify the objections at issue so that the parties could meet and 13 confer to resolve the issue without requiring intervention of the court. See February 12, 2020 email 14 from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Erin Kuka ISO the City’s 15 Opposition (“Kuka Decl.”); April 6, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit F to 16 Kochan Decl.); May 11, 2020 letter from Erin Kuka to Deborah Kochan (Exhibit I to Kochan Decl.). 17 Astonishingly, Plaintiff pursues an identical tack in her moving papers, stating that there are “other 18 boilerplate” objections in the City’s response, and asking the Court to “strike both the boilerplate and 19 specific objections” without so much as identifying which objections Plaintiff believes to be improper, 20 much less showing that the objections are improper. Plaintiff’s MPA ISO Motion to Compel, at p. 12. 21 Dated: June 17, 2020 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney 22 KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER Chief Labor Attorney 23 ERIN KUKA Deputy City Attorney 24 25 By: Erin Kuka 26 ERIN KUKA 27 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 28 8 CCSF’S SEP. STMT. ISO OPPOSITION TO SANCTIONS RE RFA 1 RESP. n:\labor\li2019\200243\01453772.docx CASE NO. CGC-19-578026