Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235).
1 SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C.
1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4
2
Chico, CA 95928 FILED/ENDORSED
Telephone: (530) 809-1851
3
Facsimile: (530) 592-3865
4
Email: psavesq@gmail.com OCT - 8 2020
5 Attomey for Plaintiffs,
JAY ROBINSON and By C. Chapo, Depufy Cierk
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
CaseNo. 34-2019-00262942
11 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.
12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
13
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; AND MOTION
14
FOR SANCTIONS
15
ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL Filed concurrendy herewith: Separate Statement
16
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a of Items in Dispute; and Declaration of Patricia
Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & A. Savage
17
JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation,
18 and DOES 1-10, Hearing Date: 11/5/2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 Dept.: 54
Defendants. Reservation Number: 2533802
20
21
Action Filed: 08/16/2019
22
23
TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
24
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon as the matter
25
may be heard in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9*
26
Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting its
27
28
\
Motion to Comjjel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions propounded to
2 ASOMEO Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC and request for monetary sanctions
3 Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 .290, on the
4 grounds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded discovery are incomplete, evasive,
5 and Defendant's objections are made without merit
This Motion will be based on Plaintiff s Notice of Motion and Motion, Plaintiffs
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of
Items in Dispute, the Declaration of Patricia A. Savage, as well as the pleadings and records on
9 file in this action
10 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative mling on the merits of this
11 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative mlings for
12 the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online
13 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local
14 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the
15 hearing and receive the tentative mling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00
16 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held
17
18 Date: October 7, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
19
20
21
Patricia A. Savage
22 Attomey for Plaintiff
Jay Robinson
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Comjjel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1
2
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 L STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 On or about April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served onto Defendant ASOMEO Environmental
6 Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") its Request for Admissions, Set One. See, EXHIBIT A, PAS
7 decl. On or about April 21, 2020, Defendant's Counsel requested a four-week extension, or until
8 June 4, 2020, to provide discovery responses. Plaintiff agreed to the extension. See, EXHIBIT B,
9 PAS decl. On or about June 1, 2020, Defendant's counsel requested an additional four-week
10 extension. Plaintiff agreed to grant a limited two-week extension. See, EXHIBIT C, PAS decl.
11 Defendant provided discovery responses on or about June 18, 2020. See, EXHIBIT D, PAS decl.
12 On or 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. On July 13, 2020 Plaintiff again met and conferred with Defendant via
22 electronic communication regarding Defendant's failure to provide responses to Plaintiffs' i
23 Request for Admissions. Counsel for Defendant again stated that they were only waiting on
24 verifications from their client and that responses would be served soon. See, EXHIBIT G, PAS
25 decl. On August 7, 2020, Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that due
2 6 to the impact their client was experiencing due to hurricane Isaias, they were having issues with
27 communications and would continue working on responses to the propounded discovery. See,
28
3
Motion to Compel Further Responses to PlaintifPs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1 EXHIBIT H, PAS decl. However, Hurricane Isaias did not make landfall of the United States
2 until August 4, 2020, weeks after Defendant stated that the only hold up was receiving
3 verifications from their client. Despite Plaintiffs multiple efforts to meet and confer, granting of
4 numerous extensions to provide substantive responses. Defendant has failed to provide amended
5 responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, and Plaintiff has been forced to move the Court
6 for an Order compelling further responses to discovery.
7 H. LEGAL ARGUMENT
8 A. Defendant Has Failed to Produce Sufficient Discovery Responses Pursuant to
9 the Civil Discovery Act
10 Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290 states that the party requesting admissions
11 may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the
12 following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; (2) An objection
13 to a particular request is without merit or too general. The propounding party must bring its
14 motion to compel further responses within 45 days of the service of the response, in accordance
15 with Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2033.290, subd. (c), and must demonstrate that it complied with its
16 obligation to meet and confer.
17 Any party may obtain discovery by propounding to any other party in the action a written
18 request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the
19 tmth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. Code Civ.
20 Proc. §2033.010.
21 Here, Plaintiff properly propounded request for admission to Defendant ASOMEO
22 Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC seeking admission to the tmth of the specified matters,
23 opinions relating to fact, or application of law to fact. Namely, the information sought is relevant
24 because the discovery goes to (1) identifying the entity that exerted control and supervision over
25 Plaintiff and other covered members; (2) identifying the genuineness or existence of Defendant's
26 employment policies and practices; (3) identifying Defendant's assertions regarding proper
27 compensation of Plaintiff and class members.
28
4
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1 Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant on multiple occasions and provided several
2 extensions to Defendant to provide substantive responses to the discovery requests. Defendant has
3 failed to provide substantive responses, and has only provided objections to Plaintiff s requests for
4 admissions.
5 B. Defendant's Objections Are Without Merit
6 Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded request for admissions contain no
7 substantive responses - only boiler plate objections that are copy and pasted.
8 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the request is overbroad as to,
9 time and scope. Plairitiff s propounded request for admissions contained definitions of all relevant
10 time periods that the requests ask about. The time and scope of the requests are cleariy defined.
11 Every response contains an objection on the grounds that the requests are irrelevant and not
12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In the absence of a contrary
13 court order, a civil litigant'srightto discovery is broad. See, Williams v. Superior Court. (2017) 3
14 Cal.5''' 531, 541. For discovery purposes, information is relevant " i f the information might
15 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. See,
16 Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4* 698. The information that Plainfiffs
17 requests seek to identify is directiy and materially relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs
18 complaint. The burden of justifying any objecfion and failure to respond remains at all times with
19 the party resisting an interrogatory. See, Coy v. Superior Court. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.
20 Defendant has made no showing that the requests are not relevant, or are not likely to lead to the
21 discovery of admissible evidence.
22 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are vague and
23 ambiguous. It is not grounds for an objection that the request is ambiguous, unless it is so
24 ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame and intelligentiy reply. See,
25 Cembrook v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423. Defendant has failed to provide any details of
2 6 why they find the requests vague or ambiguous. A reasonable person could easily understand the
27 requests and be able to form an intelligent reply.
28
5
Motion to Compel Further Resfionses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are burdensome and
2 oppressive. Objections which claim an interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive
3 require that Defendant can show either an intent to create an unreasonable burden or
4 incommensurate result. Absent such a showing, the information should be produced. See, West
5 Pico Furniture Company of Los Angeles v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. 417-418.
6 Defendant has made no such showing.
7 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the information sought is equally
8 available to Plaintiff, which is without merit. The requests are directed to Defendant, who is
9 uniquely qualified to admit or deny the requests. Additionally, Defendant has failed to seek a
10 protective order if Defendant tmly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other
11 source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Cod Civ. Proc. §
12 2019.030(a)(1).
13 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the information sought invades
14 third party privacyrights;however. Defendant fails to identify what privacy rights are being
15 referred to nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's obligation prior to thetimethat
16 responses are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for good cause, required protection or
17 should only be answered pursuant to specified terms and conditions. See, Code Civ. Proc. §
18 2030.090.
19 C. Defendant Requires the Discovery to Prepare for Trial
20 Plaintiff is entitied to have access to the information sought before prosecuting an action
21 through trial. Plaintiffs request for admissions seek relevant information related to Plaintiffs
22 claims against Defendant for failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members and
23 various violations of the Califomia Labor Code. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010
24 provides: "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
25 the subject matter involved in the pending action... if the matter either is itself admissible in
26 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
27 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party
28
6
Motion to Comi)el Further Resfwnses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1 to the action." Defendant's failure to provide any substantive responses severely prejudices
2 Plaintiff, in that the playing field is uneven. Defendant is in control of the information sought and
3 must make a good faith effort to provide substantive discovery responses to the best of their
4 ability. Misuses of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized
5 method of discovery, and making an evasive response to discovery. See, CCP § 2023.010(d)(f).
6 D. Sanctions are Warranted
7 Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2033.290(d) provides:
8 "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
9 2023.010) against any party, person, or attomey who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
10 compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
11 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
12 Failure to respond to requests for admissions, evasive responses, and objections lacking
13 substantial justification or "misuses of the discovery process." See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010(d)-
14 (f). Monetary sanctions may be imposed for serving responses containing "boilerplate" objections.
15 See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court. (1997) 51 Cal. 4* 1513, 1516.
16 The court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions
17 or contempt sanctions. C.C.P § 2023.030. Counsel has been practicing for over 15 years with a
18 majority of Counsel's practice in employment litigation. Defense Counsel's hourly rate is $325.00
19 an hour. Counsel's hourly rate is customary within the community. Approximately three hours
20 were spent in the research and preparation of Plaintiff s discovery motion, the Separate Statement,
21 the Supporting Declaration with exhibits and the Proposed Order. Plaintiff has incurred a $60.00
22 filing fee for the motion. Plaintiff anticipates incurring an additional three hours for reviewing and
23 responding to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. Additionally, Plaintiff
24 anticipates spending another three hours to prepare and attend the Noticed hearing. Plaintiff is
25 requesting the Court Order Defendant and Defendant's attorneys be sanctioned in the amount of
26 $2,985.00 for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred.
27 //
28
7
Motion to Compel Further Responses to PlaintifFs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions
1 m. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs
3 Motion to Compel Further Response, and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,985.00
4 against Defendant and Defendant's attomey for their participation in the misuse of the discovery
5 process.
6
Dated: October 7, 2020
7
Patricia A. Savage, Esq.
8 Attorney for Plaintiff
Jay Robinson
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 •
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion to Compel Further Resfionses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion 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, 2020,1 served the within:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, 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 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS
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
Shane.singh@lewisbrisbois.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;
Nolan. kessl er@lewi sbri sboi s. com
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct under the laws of the State
of Califomia and that this declaration was executed on October 7, 2020, at Chico, Califomia.
Robert T
Preview
PATRICIA A. SAVAGE (SBN 236235). 1 SAVAGE & LAMB, P.C. 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 2 Chico, CA 95928 FILED/ENDORSED Telephone: (530) 809-1851 3 Facsimile: (530) 592-3865 4 Email: psavesq@gmail.com OCT - 8 2020 5 Attomey for Plaintiffs, JAY ROBINSON and By C. Chapo, Depufy Cierk 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 CaseNo. 34-2019-00262942 11 HUGO PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; AND MOTION 14 FOR SANCTIONS 15 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL Filed concurrendy herewith: Separate Statement 16 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a of Items in Dispute; and Declaration of Patricia Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & A. Savage 17 JORDAN, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, 18 and DOES 1-10, Hearing Date: 11/5/2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 Dept.: 54 Defendants. Reservation Number: 2533802 20 21 Action Filed: 08/16/2019 22 23 TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 5, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon as the matter 25 may be heard in Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9* 26 Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting its 27 28 \ Motion to Comjjel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions propounded to 2 ASOMEO Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC and request for monetary sanctions 3 Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 .290, on the 4 grounds that Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded discovery are incomplete, evasive, 5 and Defendant's objections are made without merit This Motion will be based on Plaintiff s Notice of Motion and Motion, Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its Motion, Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Items in Dispute, the Declaration of Patricia A. Savage, as well as the pleadings and records on 9 file in this action 10 Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative mling on the merits of this 11 matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative mlings for 12 the department may be downloaded off the court's website. If the party does not have online 13 access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local 14 telephone directory between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the 15 hearing and receive the tentative mling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 16 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held 17 18 Date: October 7, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 21 Patricia A. Savage 22 Attomey for Plaintiff Jay Robinson 23 24 25 26 27 28 Motion to Comjjel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 2 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 L STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 On or about April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served onto Defendant ASOMEO Environmental 6 Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") its Request for Admissions, Set One. See, EXHIBIT A, PAS 7 decl. On or about April 21, 2020, Defendant's Counsel requested a four-week extension, or until 8 June 4, 2020, to provide discovery responses. Plaintiff agreed to the extension. See, EXHIBIT B, 9 PAS decl. On or about June 1, 2020, Defendant's counsel requested an additional four-week 10 extension. Plaintiff agreed to grant a limited two-week extension. See, EXHIBIT C, PAS decl. 11 Defendant provided discovery responses on or about June 18, 2020. See, EXHIBIT D, PAS decl. 12 On or 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. On July 13, 2020 Plaintiff again met and conferred with Defendant via 22 electronic communication regarding Defendant's failure to provide responses to Plaintiffs' i 23 Request for Admissions. Counsel for Defendant again stated that they were only waiting on 24 verifications from their client and that responses would be served soon. See, EXHIBIT G, PAS 25 decl. On August 7, 2020, Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiffs counsel an email stating that due 2 6 to the impact their client was experiencing due to hurricane Isaias, they were having issues with 27 communications and would continue working on responses to the propounded discovery. See, 28 3 Motion to Compel Further Responses to PlaintifPs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 EXHIBIT H, PAS decl. However, Hurricane Isaias did not make landfall of the United States 2 until August 4, 2020, weeks after Defendant stated that the only hold up was receiving 3 verifications from their client. Despite Plaintiffs multiple efforts to meet and confer, granting of 4 numerous extensions to provide substantive responses. Defendant has failed to provide amended 5 responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions, and Plaintiff has been forced to move the Court 6 for an Order compelling further responses to discovery. 7 H. LEGAL ARGUMENT 8 A. Defendant Has Failed to Produce Sufficient Discovery Responses Pursuant to 9 the Civil Discovery Act 10 Califomia Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290 states that the party requesting admissions 11 may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the 12 following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; (2) An objection 13 to a particular request is without merit or too general. The propounding party must bring its 14 motion to compel further responses within 45 days of the service of the response, in accordance 15 with Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2033.290, subd. (c), and must demonstrate that it complied with its 16 obligation to meet and confer. 17 Any party may obtain discovery by propounding to any other party in the action a written 18 request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the 19 tmth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. Code Civ. 20 Proc. §2033.010. 21 Here, Plaintiff properly propounded request for admission to Defendant ASOMEO 22 Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC seeking admission to the tmth of the specified matters, 23 opinions relating to fact, or application of law to fact. Namely, the information sought is relevant 24 because the discovery goes to (1) identifying the entity that exerted control and supervision over 25 Plaintiff and other covered members; (2) identifying the genuineness or existence of Defendant's 26 employment policies and practices; (3) identifying Defendant's assertions regarding proper 27 compensation of Plaintiff and class members. 28 4 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 Plaintiff has met and conferred with Defendant on multiple occasions and provided several 2 extensions to Defendant to provide substantive responses to the discovery requests. Defendant has 3 failed to provide substantive responses, and has only provided objections to Plaintiff s requests for 4 admissions. 5 B. Defendant's Objections Are Without Merit 6 Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs propounded request for admissions contain no 7 substantive responses - only boiler plate objections that are copy and pasted. 8 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the request is overbroad as to, 9 time and scope. Plairitiff s propounded request for admissions contained definitions of all relevant 10 time periods that the requests ask about. The time and scope of the requests are cleariy defined. 11 Every response contains an objection on the grounds that the requests are irrelevant and not 12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In the absence of a contrary 13 court order, a civil litigant'srightto discovery is broad. See, Williams v. Superior Court. (2017) 3 14 Cal.5''' 531, 541. For discovery purposes, information is relevant " i f the information might 15 reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. See, 16 Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4* 698. The information that Plainfiffs 17 requests seek to identify is directiy and materially relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs 18 complaint. The burden of justifying any objecfion and failure to respond remains at all times with 19 the party resisting an interrogatory. See, Coy v. Superior Court. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220. 20 Defendant has made no showing that the requests are not relevant, or are not likely to lead to the 21 discovery of admissible evidence. 22 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are vague and 23 ambiguous. It is not grounds for an objection that the request is ambiguous, unless it is so 24 ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame and intelligentiy reply. See, 25 Cembrook v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423. Defendant has failed to provide any details of 2 6 why they find the requests vague or ambiguous. A reasonable person could easily understand the 27 requests and be able to form an intelligent reply. 28 5 Motion to Compel Further Resfionses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the requests are burdensome and 2 oppressive. Objections which claim an interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome and oppressive 3 require that Defendant can show either an intent to create an unreasonable burden or 4 incommensurate result. Absent such a showing, the information should be produced. See, West 5 Pico Furniture Company of Los Angeles v. Superior Court. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. 417-418. 6 Defendant has made no such showing. 7 Every response includes an objection on the grounds that the information sought is equally 8 available to Plaintiff, which is without merit. The requests are directed to Defendant, who is 9 uniquely qualified to admit or deny the requests. Additionally, Defendant has failed to seek a 10 protective order if Defendant tmly believes the discovery sought is obtainable from some other 11 source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See, Cod Civ. Proc. § 12 2019.030(a)(1). 13 Many responses include an objection on the grounds that the information sought invades 14 third party privacyrights;however. Defendant fails to identify what privacy rights are being 15 referred to nor moved for a protective order, which is Defendant's obligation prior to thetimethat 16 responses are provided, if Defendant believed that a party, for good cause, required protection or 17 should only be answered pursuant to specified terms and conditions. See, Code Civ. Proc. § 18 2030.090. 19 C. Defendant Requires the Discovery to Prepare for Trial 20 Plaintiff is entitied to have access to the information sought before prosecuting an action 21 through trial. Plaintiffs request for admissions seek relevant information related to Plaintiffs 22 claims against Defendant for failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and class members and 23 various violations of the Califomia Labor Code. Code of Civil Procedure, section 2017.010 24 provides: "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to 25 the subject matter involved in the pending action... if the matter either is itself admissible in 26 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 27 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party 28 6 Motion to Comi)el Further Resfwnses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 to the action." Defendant's failure to provide any substantive responses severely prejudices 2 Plaintiff, in that the playing field is uneven. Defendant is in control of the information sought and 3 must make a good faith effort to provide substantive discovery responses to the best of their 4 ability. Misuses of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized 5 method of discovery, and making an evasive response to discovery. See, CCP § 2023.010(d)(f). 6 D. Sanctions are Warranted 7 Code ofCivil Procedure Section 2033.290(d) provides: 8 "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 9 2023.010) against any party, person, or attomey who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to 10 compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial 11 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. 12 Failure to respond to requests for admissions, evasive responses, and objections lacking 13 substantial justification or "misuses of the discovery process." See, Code Civ. Pro. § 2023.010(d)- 14 (f). Monetary sanctions may be imposed for serving responses containing "boilerplate" objections. 15 See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court. (1997) 51 Cal. 4* 1513, 1516. 16 The court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions 17 or contempt sanctions. C.C.P § 2023.030. Counsel has been practicing for over 15 years with a 18 majority of Counsel's practice in employment litigation. Defense Counsel's hourly rate is $325.00 19 an hour. Counsel's hourly rate is customary within the community. Approximately three hours 20 were spent in the research and preparation of Plaintiff s discovery motion, the Separate Statement, 21 the Supporting Declaration with exhibits and the Proposed Order. Plaintiff has incurred a $60.00 22 filing fee for the motion. Plaintiff anticipates incurring an additional three hours for reviewing and 23 responding to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel. Additionally, Plaintiff 24 anticipates spending another three hours to prepare and attend the Noticed hearing. Plaintiff is 25 requesting the Court Order Defendant and Defendant's attorneys be sanctioned in the amount of 26 $2,985.00 for the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff has incurred. 27 // 28 7 Motion to Compel Further Responses to PlaintifFs Request for Admissions and Motion for Sanctions 1 m. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiffs 3 Motion to Compel Further Response, and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,985.00 4 against Defendant and Defendant's attomey for their participation in the misuse of the discovery 5 process. 6 Dated: October 7, 2020 7 Patricia A. Savage, Esq. 8 Attorney for Plaintiff Jay Robinson 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Motion to Compel Further Resfionses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions and Motion 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, 2020,1 served the within: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, 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 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 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 Shane.singh@lewisbrisbois.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; Nolan. kessl er@lewi sbri sboi s. com I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct under the laws of the State of Califomia and that this declaration was executed on October 7, 2020, at Chico, Califomia. Robert T