Preview
1 Elizabeth Parker-Fawley (SBN 301592)
Won Christina Chang (SBN 325167)
2 Dominic Scarangella (SBN 347695)
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
3 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
4 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – SANTA MARIA COOK DIVISION
9 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, Case No. Case No. 21CV01369
individually, and on behalf of other Consolidated with Case No. 21CV02046
10 members of the general public similarly
situated; Honorable James F. Rigali
11 Department SM 2
Plaintiff,
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
12
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
vs. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
Glendale, California 91203
13 MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC
14 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL
15 SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND
limited liability company; and DOES 1 REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
16 through 100, inclusive,
17 Defendants. [Plaintiff’s Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement,
Declaration of Dominic Scarangella and
18 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, [Proposed] Order filed herewith.]
individually, and on behalf of other
19 aggrieved employees pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act; Hearing Date: May 21, 2024
20 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Plaintiff, Department: SM 2
21
vs. Class Action Filed: April 1, 2021
22
Class Action FAC Filed: April 20, 2021
23 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., PAGA Action Filed: May 25, 2021
an unknown business entity; Jury Trial Date: None Set
24 FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC
LLC, a California limited liability
25 company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
26
Defendants.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 21, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
3 may be heard in Department SM of the above-entitled court, located at 312-C East Cook Street,
4 Santa Maria, California 93454, Plaintiff Aspen Cruz-Bocanegra (“Plaintiff”), individually and on
5 behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel
6 of record, will and hereby does move for an order compelling Defendant Fountain Square of
7 Lompoc LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set
8 Two) 1-29. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,950.00 pursuant to
9 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290 against Defendant
10 and its counsel of record, Diane Marie O’Malley, Warren F. Hodges, and Adrianna C. Kourafas
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 of Hanson Bridgett LLP, jointly and severally for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 in connection with this motion.
13 This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 on
14 the grounds that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) are
15 deficient and not compliant with the applicable provisions of the law in that Defendant has failed
16 to provide code compliant responses. Additionally, Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s stated
17 objections are both waived and meritless. Plaintiff has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
18 meet and confer to resolve the instant discovery dispute informally. However, Defendant has
19 failed to cooperate, and Plaintiff has no reasonable alternative but to file a motion to compel.
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
i
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
1 This Motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
2 Authorities, the Declaration of Dominic Scarangella, the Separate Statement filed concurrently
3 herewith, the pleadings and papers on file in this matter, Plaintiff’s anticipated Reply in support
4 of this Motion, and upon such documentary evidence and oral argument as may be presented at
5 the hearing of this Motion.
6 Dated: March 27, 2024 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
7
By: ______________________________
8 Won Christina Chang
Dominic Scarangella
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................. 1
4 III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................... 4
5 IV. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................. 5
6 A. Defendant Failed to Serve Timely Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery and Has
Waived All Objections ........................................................................................ 5
7
B. Each of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Seeks Information Directly
8 Relevant to the Violations Alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. ................................ 6
9 1. Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 1-2 .......................................................... 6
10 2. Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 3-7, 10-15. .............................................. 7
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 3. Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 16-29. ..................................................... 8
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
C. Even Assuming Defendant Has Not Waived All Objections, Defendant’s
Glendale, California 91203
12
Objections Are Without Merit ........................................................................... 10
13
1. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Are Relevant.............................................................. 10
14
2. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Vague, Ambiguous nor Overly Broad ........................ 10
15
3. The Information Sought By Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Are Not In the
16 Possession, Custody, or Control of Plaintiff ....................................................... 11
17 4. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Are Not Premature ........................................ 12
18 5. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Do Not Invade Third Party Privacy Rights .... 12
19 6. Defendant’s Objections that Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos.
28-29 Call For A Legal Conclusion Are Meritless. ............................................ 13
20
V. REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS .............................................................. 14
21
VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 15
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
Cases
2
Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1412 ............................................................. 13
3
Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 867 ........................................................... 4
4
Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816 ......................................... 4, 7, 11
5
Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844...................................................................................... 13
6
Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 239 .................................................... 4, 7, 12
7
Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty. (1962) Cal. 2d 210 ............................................... 5
8
Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771....................................................................... 9, 10
9
Durst v. Superior Court, (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460 ............................................................... 14
10
Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.4th 245 (2000) ........................................................ 4
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 256.................................... 14
Glendale, California 91203
12
Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 1113 ........................................ 10
13
Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355 .......................................................4, 10, 11
14
Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., 281 F.R.D. 373, 391 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...................... 7
15
Hoot Winc, LLC v. RSM McGladrey Fin. Process Outsourcing, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
16 104096 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010)........................................................................................... 7
17 Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902.................................................................. 5
18 Lindell v. Synthes USA (E.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85636 ........................ 8
19 Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776 ............................................................. 6
20 Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 161 (1970)................................................... 5
21 Prag Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79624, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008)
............................................................................................................................................... 7
22
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319.................................................... 12
23
Schaff v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 921 ................................................................. 5
24
Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64........................................... 9
25
Standon v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 898..................................................................... 10
26
Valenzuela v. MC2 Pool & Spa (N.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97618 ........................ 7
27
Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652 .............................................. 13
28
iv
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
W. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407 ................................................ 13
1
Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017)................................................................... 4, 5
2
Williams v. Veolia Transp. Servs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112108, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17,
3 2008) ...................................................................................................................................... 7
4 Statutes
5 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 ............................................................................................. 12
6 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220 ................................................................................................ 9
7 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 ............................................................................................ 5, 6
8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 ............................................................................................ 5, 6
9
10
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Despite Plaintiff Aspen Cruz-Bocanegra (“Plaintiff”) efforts to meet and confer,
4 Defendant Fountain Square of Lompoc LLC (“Defendant”) has refused to provide supplemental
5 responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two), which it withholds to the exclusion and
6 prejudice of Plaintiff.
7 The discovery at issue in this Motion seeks properly discoverable information directly
8 relevant to the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s interrogatories seek discovery
9 evidencing wage and hour policies, practices, and procedures promulgated by Defendant, as well
10 as the systemic and uniform manner in which such policies were applied to the putative class
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 members. As such, this information is critical to Plaintiff’s investigation. Over the meet and
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 confer process, Plaintiff granted several extensions to Defendant’s responsive deadline including
13 offering to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to discovery to thirty days after mediation.
14 However, after mediation concluded, Defendant chose to provide objections to all discovery
15 requests approximately seven months after their deadline to respond, despite having been advised
16 that their objections had been waived and that Plaintiff would move to compel responses should
17 Defendant fail to provide substantive responses voluntarily.
18 Plaintiff has attempted to resolve this discovery dispute without the Court’s involvement
19 through attempts to meet and confer with opposing counsel. However, Plaintiff cannot do so alone.
20 Without Defendant’s cooperation, Plaintiff remains prejudiced in her discovery investigation.
21 Accordingly, Plaintiff is left with no reasonable alternative but to file this motion seeking an order
22 compelling Defendant to provide full, complete, and responsive answers to Plaintiff’s Special
23 Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 1-29.
24 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
25 On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff propounded initial discovery to Defendant, including Special
26 Interrogatories (Set Two). (Declaration of Dominic Scarangella in Support of Plaintiff's Motion
27 to Compel, ["Scarangella Decl.] ¶ 4, Exh. B). In August 2021, the Parties began discussing
28 potential mediation and continued to meet and confer over mediation during the following months.
1
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
1 (Id. at ¶ 5). Over the course of several months, Defendant requested and Plaintiff granted
2 extensions on Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery as the Parties continued to discuss
3 setting mediation. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. C)
4 On April 27, 2022, the Parties met and conferred telephonically. (Id., at ¶ 7). That same
5 day, following the meet and confer call, Defendant’s Counsel requested an extension to their
6 deadline to respond and on May 13, 2022 Plaintiff’s Counsel responded, granting a 30 day
7 extension of Defendant’s responsive deadline to June 17, 2022, and stated that once mediation
8 was set in this matter Plaintiff would be amenable to an extension of Defendant’s responsive
9 deadline to 30 days after mediation. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. D). On June 28, 2022, Defendant’s counsel
10 emailed Plaintiff’s counsel confirming an extension to Defendant’s responsive deadline to July
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 31, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. E). No further extensions were requested or granted by Plaintiff. (Id. at
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 ¶¶ 8-13, Exh. E-G).
13 On February 10, 2023, the Parties set mediation with the Hon. Daniel Buckley (Ret.) for
14 June 19, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 9). On June 19, 2023, the Parties attended mediation but it was unsuccessful
15 in resolution of the matter. (Id. at ¶ 10).
16 On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant’s Counsel that per the May
17 13, 2022 email agreement, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery were due 30 days after
18 mediation, i.e. July 19, 2023. (Id., at ¶ 11, Exh. F). Plaintiff’s Counsel further informed
19 Defendant’s Counsel that Plaintiff was never served with Defendant’s discovery responses and
20 thus Defendant had waived all objections to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special
21 Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id.). Plaintiff’s Counsel requested that full and complete substantive
22 responses to the discovery without delay. (Id.). That same day Defendant responded stating
23 someone would get back to Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendant’s
24 Counsel on January 16, 24 and 29, 2024 informing Defendant that if Plaintiff did not receive
25 Defendant’s discovery responses by the end of that week or an agreed upon date certain for their
26 production, Plaintiff would have no choice but to move to compel. (Id.).
27 On February 1, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel finally responded, stating that they were
28 working on the discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 12, Exh. G). Plaintiff’s Counsel responded that same
2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
1 day reaffirming that if they did not receive Defendant’s responses or a date certain for their
2 production without objections by the end of the week, Plaintiff would file motions to compel and
3 seek sanctions. (Id.). On February 2, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded stating they were
4 working on the responses and intended to serve them by February 29, 2024. (Id.). Plaintiff’s
5 counsel responded stating that February 29, 2024 was not an acceptable date reminding Defendant
6 that they were due months ago and that Plaintiff expects responses without objections by February
7 14, 2024 or Plaintiff would move to compel and seek sanctions. (Id.)
8 On February 14, 2024, Defendant served objection-only responses to Plaintiff’s discovery
9 including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. H). The very next day, Plaintiff sent
10 a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery including Special
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 Interrogatories (Set Two) explaining that all objections by Defendant had been waived for failure
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 to respond timely and that Defendant’s objection-only responses were improper. (Id. at ¶ 14, Exh.
13 I). In that letter Plaintiff requested Defendant to withdraw its unfounded objections and provide
14 supplemental responses and responsive documents by February 20, 2024. (Id.). On February 29,
15 2024, Plaintiff requested a two week extension of her motion to compel deadlines and that same
16 day, Defendant responded granting the extension, making the new deadline for Plaintiff’s motions
17 to compel, April 15, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 15, Exh. J).
18 On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel followed up with Defendant’s Counsel requesting
19 confirmation as to when Defendant anticipated providing full, substantive, and objections-free
20 supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id.
21 at ¶ 16, Exh. K).
22 On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff served deposition notices for Defendant’s Persons Most
23 Knowledgeable on Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 17, Exh. L). On March 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel
24 responded stating it was under the impression the Parties were putting discovery on hold for
25 settlement discussion, assuming that was the reason for the requested extension to Plaintiff’s
26 motion to compel deadlines and further state they would assume discovery was on hold until the
27 matter is settled or the parties decide a resolution cannot be reached. (Id.) On March 13, 2024,
28 Plaintiff’s counsel responded via email unequivocally denying any informal stays or holds on
3
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY
SANCTIONS
1 discovery were discussed, and reaffirmed that Defendant had waived all objections to its untimely
2 responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and that should
3 Defendant not agree to provide full, objections-free, supplemental response to Plaintiff’s
4 discovery, Plaintiff would move forward with filing her motions to compel within the week. (Id.)
5 To date, no further response has been provided by Defendant, leaving the Parties at an impasse.
6 (Id. at ¶ 18). Accordingly, Plaintiff was left with no reasonable alternative but to file this motion
7 seeking an order compelling Defendant to file this motion seeking an order compelling Defendant
8 to provide further responses.
9 III. LEGAL STANDARD
10 The right to discovery is broad; it is meant to be liberally construed so that parties may
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 ascertain the strength of their case. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 537.)
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 California courts uphold this broad right whenever possible. (See Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct.
13 (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-78.) Indeed, a plaintiff is entitled to “discovery regarding any matter,
14 not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved…if the matter is itself admissible in
15 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…”.
16 (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010.; Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 537.) California courts recognize a
17 plaintiff’s right to conduct appropriate pre-certification discovery. (Bartold v. Glendale Federal
18 Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 827; Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 239,
19 243-44.)
20 A plaintiff is entitled to discovery of evidence which might reasonably assist a party in
21 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v.
22 Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253, fn. 2; Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 560.) In putative
23 class actions, a plaintiff is entitled to broad pre-certification discovery because “[a] determination
24 ‘whether the common questions are sufficiently pervasive to permit adjudication in a class action
25 rather than in a multiplicity of suits’ cannot realistically be made until the parties have had a
26 chance to conduct reasonable investigation.” (Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d
27 867, 870 (internal citations omitted); Carabini, 26 Cal.App.4th at 239; Stern v. Superior Court
28 (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 232-33.) Under the Legislature’s liberal relevancy standard, any
4
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTI
Preview
1 Elizabeth Parker-Fawley (SBN 301592) Won Christina Chang (SBN 325167) 2 Dominic Scarangella (SBN 347695) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 3 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 4 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – SANTA MARIA COOK DIVISION 9 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, Case No. Case No. 21CV01369 individually, and on behalf of other Consolidated with Case No. 21CV02046 10 members of the general public similarly situated; Honorable James F. Rigali 11 Department SM 2 Plaintiff, LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 12 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 vs. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND Glendale, California 91203 13 MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC 14 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL 15 SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND limited liability company; and DOES 1 REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 16 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. [Plaintiff’s Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement, Declaration of Dominic Scarangella and 18 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, [Proposed] Order filed herewith.] individually, and on behalf of other 19 aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act; Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 20 Time: 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff, Department: SM 2 21 vs. Class Action Filed: April 1, 2021 22 Class Action FAC Filed: April 20, 2021 23 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., PAGA Action Filed: May 25, 2021 an unknown business entity; Jury Trial Date: None Set 24 FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California limited liability 25 company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 21, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 3 may be heard in Department SM of the above-entitled court, located at 312-C East Cook Street, 4 Santa Maria, California 93454, Plaintiff Aspen Cruz-Bocanegra (“Plaintiff”), individually and on 5 behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel 6 of record, will and hereby does move for an order compelling Defendant Fountain Square of 7 Lompoc LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set 8 Two) 1-29. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,950.00 pursuant to 9 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290 against Defendant 10 and its counsel of record, Diane Marie O’Malley, Warren F. Hodges, and Adrianna C. Kourafas LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 of Hanson Bridgett LLP, jointly and severally for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 in connection with this motion. 13 This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 on 14 the grounds that Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) are 15 deficient and not compliant with the applicable provisions of the law in that Defendant has failed 16 to provide code compliant responses. Additionally, Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s stated 17 objections are both waived and meritless. Plaintiff has made a reasonable and good faith effort to 18 meet and confer to resolve the instant discovery dispute informally. However, Defendant has 19 failed to cooperate, and Plaintiff has no reasonable alternative but to file a motion to compel. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// i PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS 1 This Motion is based upon this notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 2 Authorities, the Declaration of Dominic Scarangella, the Separate Statement filed concurrently 3 herewith, the pleadings and papers on file in this matter, Plaintiff’s anticipated Reply in support 4 of this Motion, and upon such documentary evidence and oral argument as may be presented at 5 the hearing of this Motion. 6 Dated: March 27, 2024 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 7 By: ______________________________ 8 Won Christina Chang Dominic Scarangella 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................. 1 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................... 4 5 IV. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................. 5 6 A. Defendant Failed to Serve Timely Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery and Has Waived All Objections ........................................................................................ 5 7 B. Each of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Seeks Information Directly 8 Relevant to the Violations Alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. ................................ 6 9 1. Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 1-2 .......................................................... 6 10 2. Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 3-7, 10-15. .............................................. 7 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 3. Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 16-29. ..................................................... 8 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 C. Even Assuming Defendant Has Not Waived All Objections, Defendant’s Glendale, California 91203 12 Objections Are Without Merit ........................................................................... 10 13 1. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Are Relevant.............................................................. 10 14 2. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Vague, Ambiguous nor Overly Broad ........................ 10 15 3. The Information Sought By Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Are Not In the 16 Possession, Custody, or Control of Plaintiff ....................................................... 11 17 4. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Are Not Premature ........................................ 12 18 5. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Do Not Invade Third Party Privacy Rights .... 12 19 6. Defendant’s Objections that Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 28-29 Call For A Legal Conclusion Are Meritless. ............................................ 13 20 V. REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS .............................................................. 14 21 VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 15 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 Cases 2 Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1412 ............................................................. 13 3 Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 867 ........................................................... 4 4 Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816 ......................................... 4, 7, 11 5 Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844...................................................................................... 13 6 Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 239 .................................................... 4, 7, 12 7 Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty. (1962) Cal. 2d 210 ............................................... 5 8 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771....................................................................... 9, 10 9 Durst v. Superior Court, (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460 ............................................................... 14 10 Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.4th 245 (2000) ........................................................ 4 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 256.................................... 14 Glendale, California 91203 12 Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 1113 ........................................ 10 13 Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355 .......................................................4, 10, 11 14 Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., 281 F.R.D. 373, 391 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...................... 7 15 Hoot Winc, LLC v. RSM McGladrey Fin. Process Outsourcing, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16 104096 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010)........................................................................................... 7 17 Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902.................................................................. 5 18 Lindell v. Synthes USA (E.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85636 ........................ 8 19 Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776 ............................................................. 6 20 Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 161 (1970)................................................... 5 21 Prag Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79624, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008) ............................................................................................................................................... 7 22 Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal. 4th 319.................................................... 12 23 Schaff v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 921 ................................................................. 5 24 Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64........................................... 9 25 Standon v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 898..................................................................... 10 26 Valenzuela v. MC2 Pool & Spa (N.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97618 ........................ 7 27 Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652 .............................................. 13 28 iv PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS W. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407 ................................................ 13 1 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017)................................................................... 4, 5 2 Williams v. Veolia Transp. Servs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112108, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 3 2008) ...................................................................................................................................... 7 4 Statutes 5 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 ............................................................................................. 12 6 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220 ................................................................................................ 9 7 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 ............................................................................................ 5, 6 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 ............................................................................................ 5, 6 9 10 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Despite Plaintiff Aspen Cruz-Bocanegra (“Plaintiff”) efforts to meet and confer, 4 Defendant Fountain Square of Lompoc LLC (“Defendant”) has refused to provide supplemental 5 responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two), which it withholds to the exclusion and 6 prejudice of Plaintiff. 7 The discovery at issue in this Motion seeks properly discoverable information directly 8 relevant to the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s interrogatories seek discovery 9 evidencing wage and hour policies, practices, and procedures promulgated by Defendant, as well 10 as the systemic and uniform manner in which such policies were applied to the putative class LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 members. As such, this information is critical to Plaintiff’s investigation. Over the meet and 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 confer process, Plaintiff granted several extensions to Defendant’s responsive deadline including 13 offering to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to discovery to thirty days after mediation. 14 However, after mediation concluded, Defendant chose to provide objections to all discovery 15 requests approximately seven months after their deadline to respond, despite having been advised 16 that their objections had been waived and that Plaintiff would move to compel responses should 17 Defendant fail to provide substantive responses voluntarily. 18 Plaintiff has attempted to resolve this discovery dispute without the Court’s involvement 19 through attempts to meet and confer with opposing counsel. However, Plaintiff cannot do so alone. 20 Without Defendant’s cooperation, Plaintiff remains prejudiced in her discovery investigation. 21 Accordingly, Plaintiff is left with no reasonable alternative but to file this motion seeking an order 22 compelling Defendant to provide full, complete, and responsive answers to Plaintiff’s Special 23 Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 1-29. 24 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 25 On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff propounded initial discovery to Defendant, including Special 26 Interrogatories (Set Two). (Declaration of Dominic Scarangella in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 27 to Compel, ["Scarangella Decl.] ¶ 4, Exh. B). In August 2021, the Parties began discussing 28 potential mediation and continued to meet and confer over mediation during the following months. 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS 1 (Id. at ¶ 5). Over the course of several months, Defendant requested and Plaintiff granted 2 extensions on Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery as the Parties continued to discuss 3 setting mediation. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. C) 4 On April 27, 2022, the Parties met and conferred telephonically. (Id., at ¶ 7). That same 5 day, following the meet and confer call, Defendant’s Counsel requested an extension to their 6 deadline to respond and on May 13, 2022 Plaintiff’s Counsel responded, granting a 30 day 7 extension of Defendant’s responsive deadline to June 17, 2022, and stated that once mediation 8 was set in this matter Plaintiff would be amenable to an extension of Defendant’s responsive 9 deadline to 30 days after mediation. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. D). On June 28, 2022, Defendant’s counsel 10 emailed Plaintiff’s counsel confirming an extension to Defendant’s responsive deadline to July LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 31, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. E). No further extensions were requested or granted by Plaintiff. (Id. at 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 ¶¶ 8-13, Exh. E-G). 13 On February 10, 2023, the Parties set mediation with the Hon. Daniel Buckley (Ret.) for 14 June 19, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 9). On June 19, 2023, the Parties attended mediation but it was unsuccessful 15 in resolution of the matter. (Id. at ¶ 10). 16 On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant’s Counsel that per the May 17 13, 2022 email agreement, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery were due 30 days after 18 mediation, i.e. July 19, 2023. (Id., at ¶ 11, Exh. F). Plaintiff’s Counsel further informed 19 Defendant’s Counsel that Plaintiff was never served with Defendant’s discovery responses and 20 thus Defendant had waived all objections to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special 21 Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id.). Plaintiff’s Counsel requested that full and complete substantive 22 responses to the discovery without delay. (Id.). That same day Defendant responded stating 23 someone would get back to Plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with Defendant’s 24 Counsel on January 16, 24 and 29, 2024 informing Defendant that if Plaintiff did not receive 25 Defendant’s discovery responses by the end of that week or an agreed upon date certain for their 26 production, Plaintiff would have no choice but to move to compel. (Id.). 27 On February 1, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel finally responded, stating that they were 28 working on the discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 12, Exh. G). Plaintiff’s Counsel responded that same 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS 1 day reaffirming that if they did not receive Defendant’s responses or a date certain for their 2 production without objections by the end of the week, Plaintiff would file motions to compel and 3 seek sanctions. (Id.). On February 2, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded stating they were 4 working on the responses and intended to serve them by February 29, 2024. (Id.). Plaintiff’s 5 counsel responded stating that February 29, 2024 was not an acceptable date reminding Defendant 6 that they were due months ago and that Plaintiff expects responses without objections by February 7 14, 2024 or Plaintiff would move to compel and seek sanctions. (Id.) 8 On February 14, 2024, Defendant served objection-only responses to Plaintiff’s discovery 9 including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. H). The very next day, Plaintiff sent 10 a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery including Special LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 Interrogatories (Set Two) explaining that all objections by Defendant had been waived for failure 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 to respond timely and that Defendant’s objection-only responses were improper. (Id. at ¶ 14, Exh. 13 I). In that letter Plaintiff requested Defendant to withdraw its unfounded objections and provide 14 supplemental responses and responsive documents by February 20, 2024. (Id.). On February 29, 15 2024, Plaintiff requested a two week extension of her motion to compel deadlines and that same 16 day, Defendant responded granting the extension, making the new deadline for Plaintiff’s motions 17 to compel, April 15, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 15, Exh. J). 18 On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel followed up with Defendant’s Counsel requesting 19 confirmation as to when Defendant anticipated providing full, substantive, and objections-free 20 supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). (Id. 21 at ¶ 16, Exh. K). 22 On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff served deposition notices for Defendant’s Persons Most 23 Knowledgeable on Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 17, Exh. L). On March 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel 24 responded stating it was under the impression the Parties were putting discovery on hold for 25 settlement discussion, assuming that was the reason for the requested extension to Plaintiff’s 26 motion to compel deadlines and further state they would assume discovery was on hold until the 27 matter is settled or the parties decide a resolution cannot be reached. (Id.) On March 13, 2024, 28 Plaintiff’s counsel responded via email unequivocally denying any informal stays or holds on 3 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPELFURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FORMONETARY SANCTIONS 1 discovery were discussed, and reaffirmed that Defendant had waived all objections to its untimely 2 responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and that should 3 Defendant not agree to provide full, objections-free, supplemental response to Plaintiff’s 4 discovery, Plaintiff would move forward with filing her motions to compel within the week. (Id.) 5 To date, no further response has been provided by Defendant, leaving the Parties at an impasse. 6 (Id. at ¶ 18). Accordingly, Plaintiff was left with no reasonable alternative but to file this motion 7 seeking an order compelling Defendant to file this motion seeking an order compelling Defendant 8 to provide further responses. 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 The right to discovery is broad; it is meant to be liberally construed so that parties may LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 ascertain the strength of their case. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 537.) 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 California courts uphold this broad right whenever possible. (See Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. 13 (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-78.) Indeed, a plaintiff is entitled to “discovery regarding any matter, 14 not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved…if the matter is itself admissible in 15 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…”. 16 (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010.; Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 537.) California courts recognize a 17 plaintiff’s right to conduct appropriate pre-certification discovery. (Bartold v. Glendale Federal 18 Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 816, 827; Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 239, 19 243-44.) 20 A plaintiff is entitled to discovery of evidence which might reasonably assist a party in 21 evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. 22 Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253, fn. 2; Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 560.) In putative 23 class actions, a plaintiff is entitled to broad pre-certification discovery because “[a] determination 24 ‘whether the common questions are sufficiently pervasive to permit adjudication in a class action 25 rather than in a multiplicity of suits’ cannot realistically be made until the parties have had a 26 chance to conduct reasonable investigation.” (Atari, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 27 867, 870 (internal citations omitted); Carabini, 26 Cal.App.4th at 239; Stern v. Superior Court 28 (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 232-33.) Under the Legislature’s liberal relevancy standard, any 4 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTI