Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235)
1, SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C.
1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 FILED / ENDORSED I
2 Chico, CA 95928
Telephone: (530) 809-1851
3
Facsimile: (530) 592-3865
Email: psavesq@gmail.com OCT - 8 2020
4
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs, By C. Chapo. Deputy Clerk
JAY ROBINSON and
6 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
JAY ROBINSON and
HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of Case No. 34-2019-00262942
11
all others similarly situated,
12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
13
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FORM
14
V.
INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT,
15
SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR
ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTIONS
16 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a
Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS &. Filed concurrendy herewith: Separate Statement
17 of Items in Dispute; and Declaration of Patricia
JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation,
18 and DOES 1-10, A. Savage
19 Hearing Date: 11/5/2020
Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Dept.: 54
21
Reservation Number: 2533801
22
Action Filed: 08/16/2019
23
24
25 TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon as the matter
27 may be heard in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9"^
28
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories -
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1 Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting its
2 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, Plaintiffs'
3 Form Interrogatories - General, Set One, and Plaintiffs' Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set
4 One propounded to ASOMEO Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC and request for monetary
5 sanctions
6 Plaintiffbrings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, on the
7 grounds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded discovery are incomplete, evasive,
and Defendant's objections are made without merit
9 This Motion will be based on Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion, Plaintiffs
10 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of
11 Items in Dispute, the Declaration of Patricia A. Savage, as well as the pleadings and records on
12 file in this action
13 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative mling on the merits of this
14 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative mlings for
15 the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online
16 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local
17 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the
18 hearing and receive the tentative mling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00
19 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held
20
21 Date: October 7, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
22
23
24
3"
Patricia A. Savage
25 Attorney for Plaintiffs
26
27
28
Motion to Comjjel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Fonn Interrogatories
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1
2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 L STATEMENT OF FACTS
4 On or about April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served onto Defendant ASOMEO Environmental
5 Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") its Special Interrogatories, Set One; Form Interrogatories -
6 General, Set One; Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One. See, EXHIBIT A, PAS decl. On
7 or about April 21, 2020, Defendant's Counsel requested a four-week extension, or until June 4,
8 2020, to provide discovery responses. Plaintiff agreed to the extension. See, EXHIBIT B, PAS
9 decl. On or about June I , 2020, Defendant's counsel requested an additional four-week extension.
10 Plaintiff agreed to grant a limited two-week extension. See, EXHIBIT C, PAS decl. Defendant
11 provided discovery responses on or about June 18, 2020. See, EXHIBIT D, PAS decl. On or
12 about June 22, 2020, Plaintiff met and conferred by electronic correspondence regarding
13 Defendant's deficient discovery responses as they contained boiler plate objections that appeared
14 to be copied and pasted with objections that were often irrelevant and without support and
15 additionally contained no substantive responses. Plaintiff agreed to provide an additional two
16 weeks, until July 6, 2020, for Defendant to provide substantive discovery responses. See,
17 EXHIBIT E, PAS decl. The parties met and conferred again via electronic communication on
18 July 6, 2020, and Plaintiff agreed to grant Defendant's request for an additional extension of time
19 to provide discovery responses on July 10, 2020. Counsel for Defendant stated that responses had
20 been completed, but the only hold up was waiting for signed verifications from their client. See,
21 EXHIBIT F, PAS decl. Defendant provided amended responses to Plaintiffs' Form
22 Interrogatories - General, Set One on July 10, 2020. On July 13, 2020 Plaintiff again met and
23 conferred with Defendant via electronic communication regarding Defendant's failure to provide
24 responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatories - Employment,
25 Set One. Counsel for Defendant again stated that they were only waiting on verifications from
2 6 their client and that responses would be served soon. See, EXHIBIT G, PAS decl. On August 7,
27 2020, Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that due to the impact their
28
Motion to Compel Further Resfwnses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1 client was experiencing due to hurricane Isaias, they were having issues with communications and
2 would continue working on responses to the propounded discovery. See, EXHIBIT H, PAS decl.
3 However, Hurricane Isaias did not make landfall of the United States until August 4, 2020, weeks
4 after Defendant stated that the only hold up was receiving verifications from their client. Despite
5 Plaintiffs multiple efforts to meet and confer, granting of numerous extensions to provide
6 substantive responses. Defendant has failed to provide amended responses to Plaintiffs' Special
7 Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One, and Plaintiff has been
8 forced to move the Court for an Order compelling further responses to discovery.
9 H. L E G A L ARGUMENT
10 A. Defendant Has Failed to Produce Sufficient Discovery Responses Pursuant to
11 the Civil Discovery Act
12 If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the
13 propounding party may move the court to compel further responses to interrogatories or inspection
14 demands. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2030.300, 2031.310. The propounding party must demonstrate that
15 the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted
16 objections that are either without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)-
17 (3), 2031.310, subd. (a)(l)-(3). The propounding party must bring its motion to compel further
18 responses within 45 days of the service of the response, in accordance with Code Civ. Proc, §§
19 2030.300, subd. (c), § 2031.310, subd. (c), and must demonstrate that it complied with its
20 obligation to meet and confer. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd
21 (b)(2). Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting. Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants. 148 Cal. App. 4th 390.
22 391, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751, 752 (2007).
23 Any party may obtain discovery by propounding to any other party in the action written '
24 interrogatories to be answered under oath pursuant to C.C.P Section 2030.010. Here, Plaintiff
25 properly propounded specially prepared interrogatories to Defendant ASOMEO Environmental
2 6 Restoration Industry, LLC seeking evidentiary information relevant to the claims of Plaintiff s
27 complaint and Defendant's defenses. Namely, the information sought is relevant because the
28
Motion to Compel Further Resjwnses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories -
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1 discovery goes to (1) identifying covered members during the covered period; (2) information
2 regarding Plaintiffs employment with Defendant; (3) Defendant's employment practices
3 including policies, procedures regarding meal and rest breaks, and compensation of employees.
4 B. Defendant's Objections Are Without Merit
5 Defendant's responses contain no substantive responses - only boiler plate objections that
6 are copy and pasted.
7 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as
8 to time and scope as well as being burdensome and oppressive; however. Defendant fails to show
9 the requisite intent to create an unreasonable burden or incommensurate result. See West Pico
10 Furniture Company of Los Angeles v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407. 417-418.
11 Additionally, Plaintiff provided definitions of the periods oftimethe interrogatories refer to,
12 clearly defining the time and scope of the interrogatories.
13 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories are irrelevant
14 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fails to
15 provide any basis for which this objection is made. Additionally, a civil litigant's right to
16 discovery is broad. See, Williams v. Superior Court. (2017) 3 Cal. 5'*' 531, 541. To show an
17 interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information "is not the burden of the party propounding
18 interrogatories. As a litigant, it is entitied to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of
19 right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served
20 objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section." See,
21 West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, supra, at 422. Defendant has shown no cause.
22 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the interrogatory is not "full and
23 complete in an of itself as required by Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 2030.060(c)-(d). Every interrogatory
24 Plaintiff propounded is clearly identified by number. The interrogatories do not contain preface or
25 instmction and do not reference any other interrogatories.
26 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the information sought is equally
27 available to Plaintiff Defendant has failed to justify this assertion and has failed to move for a
28
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1 protective order if Defendant tmly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other
2 source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Code Civ. Proc. §
3 2019.030(a)(1).
4 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories invade third
5 party rights; however. Defendant has failed to identify what privacyrightsare being referred to
6 nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's obligation prior to the time that responses
7 are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for good cause, required protection or should only
8 be answered pursuant to specified terms and conditions. See, Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090.
9 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories are compound
10 or contain sub-parts. The interrogatories the Plaintiff propounded cover single subjects, not
11 compound and do not contain sub-parts and therefore should be allowed. See, Clement v. Alegre.
12 (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4* 1277, 1291.
13 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories seek
14 information that would violate the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. While a
15 responding party may object to an interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks privileged
16 information, the existence of the document or documents containing the alleged privileged
17 information is not privileged. See, Smith v. Superior Court. (1961) 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 12. "A
18 party has no right to refuse to identify documents in response to interrogatories, even if it may
19 properly refuse to produce them later, based upon a claim of privilege." See, Hemandez v.
20 Superior Court. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4"^ 285, 294.
21 C. Defendant Requires the Discovery to Prepare for Trial
22 Plaintiff is entitled to have access to the information sought before prosecuting an action
23 through trial. Plaintiffs interrogatories seek relevant information related to Plaintiffs claims
24 against Defendant for failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members and various
25 violations of the Califomia Labor Code. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010 provides:
2 6 "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
27 subject matter involved in the pending action .. if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence
28
Modon to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories -
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1 or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may
2 relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action."
3 Defendant's failure to provide any substantive responses severely prejudices Plaintiff, in that the
4 playing field is uneven. Defendant is control of the information sought and must make a good faith
5 effort to provide substantive discovery responses to the best of their ability. Misuses of the
6 discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery, and
7 making an evasive response to discovery. See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010 (d)(f).
8 D. Sanctions are Warranted
9 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.300 (d) provides:
10 "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
11 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
12 compel a further response to interrogatories, unless itfindsthat the one subject to the sanction
13 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
14 unjust."
15 Failure to respond to interrogatories, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial
16 justification are "misuses of the discovery process." See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010 (d)-(f).
17 Monetary sanctions may be imposed for serving responses containing "boilerplate" objections.
18 See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court. (1997) 51 Cal. 4"' 1513, 1516.
19 The court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions
20 or contempt sanctions. C.C.P § 2023.030. Counsel has been practicing for over 15 years with a
21 majority of Counsel's practice in employment litigation. Defense Counsel's houriy rate is $325.00
22 an hour. Counsel's hourly rate is customary within the community. Approximately five hours were
23 spent in the research and preparation of Plaintiff s discovery motion, the Separate Statement, the
24 Supporting Declaration with exhibits and the Proposed Order. Plaintiff has incurred a $60.00 filing
25 fee for the motion. Plaintiff anticipates incurring an additional four hours for reviewing and
26 responding to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. Additionally, Plaintiff
27 anticipates spending another three hours to prepare and attend the Noticed hearing. Plaintiff is
28
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
1 requesting the Court Order Defendant and Defendant's attorneys be sanctioned in the amount of
2 $3,960.00 for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred.
3 m . CONCLUSION
4 For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs
5 Motion to Compel Further Response, and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,960.00
6 against Defendant and Defendant's attorney for their participation in the misuse of the discovery
7 process.
Dated: October 7, 2020
9
Patricia A. Savage, Esq.
10 Attomey for Plaintiff
Jay Robinson
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Comjjel Further Resjxmses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories -
Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions
Proof of Service
I, Robert Towne, am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Butte. I am over
the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1550
Humboldt Road, Suite 4, Chico, CA 95928. I am readily familiar with the practice of collection
and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service
and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the
United Stated Postal Service in the ordinary course ofbusiness on the same day.
On October 7,1 served the within:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S SPECL\L INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM
INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM
INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECL\L
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND FORM INTERROGATORIES -
EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
By e-mail or electronic transmission: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail
address roberttowne.savagelaw@gmail.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I
did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
Shane Singh
Lewis Brisbois
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
S hane. si ngh@l ewi sbri sb oi s. com
The following is a procedure in which service of this document was effected:
XXXX Electronic Service: shane.singh@lewisbrisbois.com;
George.theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com; anne.french@lewisbrisbois.com;
Noi an .kessl er@l ewi sbri sboi s. com
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct under the laws of the State
of California and that this declaration was executed on October 7, 2020, at Chico, California.
Robert Towne
Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235) 1, SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C. 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 FILED / ENDORSED I 2 Chico, CA 95928 Telephone: (530) 809-1851 3 Facsimile: (530) 592-3865 Email: psavesq@gmail.com OCT - 8 2020 4 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs, By C. Chapo. Deputy Clerk JAY ROBINSON and 6 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of Case No. 34-2019-00262942 11 all others similarly situated, 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FORM 14 V. INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, 15 SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTIONS 16 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS &. Filed concurrendy herewith: Separate Statement 17 of Items in Dispute; and Declaration of Patricia JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, 18 and DOES 1-10, A. Savage 19 Hearing Date: 11/5/2020 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Dept.: 54 21 Reservation Number: 2533801 22 Action Filed: 08/16/2019 23 24 25 TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon as the matter 27 may be heard in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9"^ 28 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting its 2 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, Plaintiffs' 3 Form Interrogatories - General, Set One, and Plaintiffs' Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set 4 One propounded to ASOMEO Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC and request for monetary 5 sanctions 6 Plaintiffbrings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, on the 7 grounds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded discovery are incomplete, evasive, and Defendant's objections are made without merit 9 This Motion will be based on Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion, Plaintiffs 10 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of 11 Items in Dispute, the Declaration of Patricia A. Savage, as well as the pleadings and records on 12 file in this action 13 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative mling on the merits of this 14 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative mlings for 15 the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online 16 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local 17 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the 18 hearing and receive the tentative mling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 19 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held 20 21 Date: October 7, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 22 23 24 3" Patricia A. Savage 25 Attorney for Plaintiffs 26 27 28 Motion to Comjjel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Fonn Interrogatories Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 L STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 On or about April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served onto Defendant ASOMEO Environmental 5 Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") its Special Interrogatories, Set One; Form Interrogatories - 6 General, Set One; Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One. See, EXHIBIT A, PAS decl. On 7 or about April 21, 2020, Defendant's Counsel requested a four-week extension, or until June 4, 8 2020, to provide discovery responses. Plaintiff agreed to the extension. See, EXHIBIT B, PAS 9 decl. On or about June I , 2020, Defendant's counsel requested an additional four-week extension. 10 Plaintiff agreed to grant a limited two-week extension. See, EXHIBIT C, PAS decl. Defendant 11 provided discovery responses on or about June 18, 2020. See, EXHIBIT D, PAS decl. On or 12 about June 22, 2020, Plaintiff met and conferred by electronic correspondence regarding 13 Defendant's deficient discovery responses as they contained boiler plate objections that appeared 14 to be copied and pasted with objections that were often irrelevant and without support and 15 additionally contained no substantive responses. Plaintiff agreed to provide an additional two 16 weeks, until July 6, 2020, for Defendant to provide substantive discovery responses. See, 17 EXHIBIT E, PAS decl. The parties met and conferred again via electronic communication on 18 July 6, 2020, and Plaintiff agreed to grant Defendant's request for an additional extension of time 19 to provide discovery responses on July 10, 2020. Counsel for Defendant stated that responses had 20 been completed, but the only hold up was waiting for signed verifications from their client. See, 21 EXHIBIT F, PAS decl. Defendant provided amended responses to Plaintiffs' Form 22 Interrogatories - General, Set One on July 10, 2020. On July 13, 2020 Plaintiff again met and 23 conferred with Defendant via electronic communication regarding Defendant's failure to provide 24 responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatories - Employment, 25 Set One. Counsel for Defendant again stated that they were only waiting on verifications from 2 6 their client and that responses would be served soon. See, EXHIBIT G, PAS decl. On August 7, 27 2020, Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that due to the impact their 28 Motion to Compel Further Resfwnses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 client was experiencing due to hurricane Isaias, they were having issues with communications and 2 would continue working on responses to the propounded discovery. See, EXHIBIT H, PAS decl. 3 However, Hurricane Isaias did not make landfall of the United States until August 4, 2020, weeks 4 after Defendant stated that the only hold up was receiving verifications from their client. Despite 5 Plaintiffs multiple efforts to meet and confer, granting of numerous extensions to provide 6 substantive responses. Defendant has failed to provide amended responses to Plaintiffs' Special 7 Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One, and Plaintiff has been 8 forced to move the Court for an Order compelling further responses to discovery. 9 H. L E G A L ARGUMENT 10 A. Defendant Has Failed to Produce Sufficient Discovery Responses Pursuant to 11 the Civil Discovery Act 12 If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, the 13 propounding party may move the court to compel further responses to interrogatories or inspection 14 demands. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2030.300, 2031.310. The propounding party must demonstrate that 15 the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted 16 objections that are either without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)- 17 (3), 2031.310, subd. (a)(l)-(3). The propounding party must bring its motion to compel further 18 responses within 45 days of the service of the response, in accordance with Code Civ. Proc, §§ 19 2030.300, subd. (c), § 2031.310, subd. (c), and must demonstrate that it complied with its 20 obligation to meet and confer. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd 21 (b)(2). Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting. Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants. 148 Cal. App. 4th 390. 22 391, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751, 752 (2007). 23 Any party may obtain discovery by propounding to any other party in the action written ' 24 interrogatories to be answered under oath pursuant to C.C.P Section 2030.010. Here, Plaintiff 25 properly propounded specially prepared interrogatories to Defendant ASOMEO Environmental 2 6 Restoration Industry, LLC seeking evidentiary information relevant to the claims of Plaintiff s 27 complaint and Defendant's defenses. Namely, the information sought is relevant because the 28 Motion to Compel Further Resjwnses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 discovery goes to (1) identifying covered members during the covered period; (2) information 2 regarding Plaintiffs employment with Defendant; (3) Defendant's employment practices 3 including policies, procedures regarding meal and rest breaks, and compensation of employees. 4 B. Defendant's Objections Are Without Merit 5 Defendant's responses contain no substantive responses - only boiler plate objections that 6 are copy and pasted. 7 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the interrogatory is overbroad as 8 to time and scope as well as being burdensome and oppressive; however. Defendant fails to show 9 the requisite intent to create an unreasonable burden or incommensurate result. See West Pico 10 Furniture Company of Los Angeles v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407. 417-418. 11 Additionally, Plaintiff provided definitions of the periods oftimethe interrogatories refer to, 12 clearly defining the time and scope of the interrogatories. 13 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories are irrelevant 14 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant fails to 15 provide any basis for which this objection is made. Additionally, a civil litigant's right to 16 discovery is broad. See, Williams v. Superior Court. (2017) 3 Cal. 5'*' 531, 541. To show an 17 interrogatory seeks relevant, discoverable information "is not the burden of the party propounding 18 interrogatories. As a litigant, it is entitied to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of 19 right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served 20 objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section." See, 21 West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, supra, at 422. Defendant has shown no cause. 22 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the interrogatory is not "full and 23 complete in an of itself as required by Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 2030.060(c)-(d). Every interrogatory 24 Plaintiff propounded is clearly identified by number. The interrogatories do not contain preface or 25 instmction and do not reference any other interrogatories. 26 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the information sought is equally 27 available to Plaintiff Defendant has failed to justify this assertion and has failed to move for a 28 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 protective order if Defendant tmly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other 2 source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Code Civ. Proc. § 3 2019.030(a)(1). 4 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories invade third 5 party rights; however. Defendant has failed to identify what privacyrightsare being referred to 6 nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's obligation prior to the time that responses 7 are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for good cause, required protection or should only 8 be answered pursuant to specified terms and conditions. See, Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090. 9 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories are compound 10 or contain sub-parts. The interrogatories the Plaintiff propounded cover single subjects, not 11 compound and do not contain sub-parts and therefore should be allowed. See, Clement v. Alegre. 12 (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4* 1277, 1291. 13 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the interrogatories seek 14 information that would violate the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. While a 15 responding party may object to an interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks privileged 16 information, the existence of the document or documents containing the alleged privileged 17 information is not privileged. See, Smith v. Superior Court. (1961) 189 Cal. App. 2d 6, 12. "A 18 party has no right to refuse to identify documents in response to interrogatories, even if it may 19 properly refuse to produce them later, based upon a claim of privilege." See, Hemandez v. 20 Superior Court. (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4"^ 285, 294. 21 C. Defendant Requires the Discovery to Prepare for Trial 22 Plaintiff is entitled to have access to the information sought before prosecuting an action 23 through trial. Plaintiffs interrogatories seek relevant information related to Plaintiffs claims 24 against Defendant for failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members and various 25 violations of the Califomia Labor Code. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010 provides: 2 6 "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the 27 subject matter involved in the pending action .. if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence 28 Modon to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may 2 relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action." 3 Defendant's failure to provide any substantive responses severely prejudices Plaintiff, in that the 4 playing field is uneven. Defendant is control of the information sought and must make a good faith 5 effort to provide substantive discovery responses to the best of their ability. Misuses of the 6 discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery, and 7 making an evasive response to discovery. See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010 (d)(f). 8 D. Sanctions are Warranted 9 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.300 (d) provides: 10 "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 11 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to 12 compel a further response to interrogatories, unless itfindsthat the one subject to the sanction 13 acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction 14 unjust." 15 Failure to respond to interrogatories, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial 16 justification are "misuses of the discovery process." See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010 (d)-(f). 17 Monetary sanctions may be imposed for serving responses containing "boilerplate" objections. 18 See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court. (1997) 51 Cal. 4"' 1513, 1516. 19 The court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions 20 or contempt sanctions. C.C.P § 2023.030. Counsel has been practicing for over 15 years with a 21 majority of Counsel's practice in employment litigation. Defense Counsel's houriy rate is $325.00 22 an hour. Counsel's hourly rate is customary within the community. Approximately five hours were 23 spent in the research and preparation of Plaintiff s discovery motion, the Separate Statement, the 24 Supporting Declaration with exhibits and the Proposed Order. Plaintiff has incurred a $60.00 filing 25 fee for the motion. Plaintiff anticipates incurring an additional four hours for reviewing and 26 responding to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. Additionally, Plaintiff 27 anticipates spending another three hours to prepare and attend the Noticed hearing. Plaintiff is 28 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions 1 requesting the Court Order Defendant and Defendant's attorneys be sanctioned in the amount of 2 $3,960.00 for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred. 3 m . CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs 5 Motion to Compel Further Response, and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,960.00 6 against Defendant and Defendant's attorney for their participation in the misuse of the discovery 7 process. Dated: October 7, 2020 9 Patricia A. Savage, Esq. 10 Attomey for Plaintiff Jay Robinson 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Motion to Comjjel Further Resjxmses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One and Request for Sanctions Proof of Service I, Robert Towne, am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Butte. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4, Chico, CA 95928. I am readily familiar with the practice of collection and processing of correspondence/documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that said correspondence/documents are deposited with the United Stated Postal Service in the ordinary course ofbusiness on the same day. On October 7,1 served the within: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECL\L INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE; AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECL\L INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND FORM INTERROGATORIES - EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS By e-mail or electronic transmission: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address roberttowne.savagelaw@gmail.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Shane Singh Lewis Brisbois 2020 West El Camino Avenue Suite 700 Sacramento, CA 95833 S hane. si ngh@l ewi sbri sb oi s. com The following is a procedure in which service of this document was effected: XXXX Electronic Service: shane.singh@lewisbrisbois.com; George.theofanis@lewisbrisbois.com; anne.french@lewisbrisbois.com; Noi an .kessl er@l ewi sbri sboi s. com I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct under the laws of the State of California and that this declaration was executed on October 7, 2020, at Chico, California. Robert Towne