Preview
1 ROB BONTA 3/26/2024
Attorney General of California
2 JERRY J. DESCHLER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 State Bar No. 215691
1300 I Street, Suite 125
4 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
5 Telephone: (916) 210-7871
Fax: (916) 324-5567
6 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
7 Board of Trustees of the California State University,
which is the State of California acting in its higher
8 education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees
of the California State University, State of
9 California”) and Cynthia Daley
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF BUTTE
12 CIVIL DIVISION
13
14
TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226
15
Plaintiff,
16
v. DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE
17 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
18 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION
STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF FOR SANCTIONS
19 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY,
AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Date: April 24, 2024
20 AN INDIVIDUAL,, Time: 9:00 am
Dept: 6
21 Defendant. Judge: The Honorable Stephen E.
Benson
22 Trial Date:
Action Filed: April 24, 2019
23
24 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Defendant Board of Trustees of the
25 California State University, at the California State University, Chico campus (the “CSU”),
26 provides the following Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to
27 Interrogatories and Motion for Sanctions.
28
1
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 As set forth below, the CSU seeks to compel further responses to inadequate responses to
2 the following written discovery requests:
3 • Special Interrogatories, Set Two, interrogatories 26-27 (Exh. G);
4 • Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set one, interrogatory 217.1 (Exh. J); and
5 • Special Interrogatories, Set Three, interrogatory 36 (Exh. K).
6 Randolph’s responses do not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons set
7 forth below. Additionally, Randolph has never provided verifications under oath as required by
8 the Code of Civil Procedure for any of her responses.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
11 State the last known contact information for witness Robyn McCrae.
12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
13 Unknown.
14 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 IS NECESSARY:
15 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. This interrogatory requests
16 Robyn McCrae’s, a former CSU employee, last known contact information. Randolph testified in
17 her deposition that Ms. McCrae was present outside the room when Randolph met with a senior
18 CSU employee to make various complaints that from the basis for her retaliation causes of action.
19 Randolph testified that she believes Ms. McCrae witnessed the alleged retaliator evesdrop on that
20 meeting and that Ms. McCrae observed the alleged retaliator become visibly angry. Thus, Ms.
21 McCrae is a key witness, and the information sought by this interrogatory is necessary to
22 interview her and/or subpoena her for a deposition. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.)
23 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by
24 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a);
25 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that
26 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the
27 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State
28 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then
2
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare)
2 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.)
3 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the
4 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, they merely state: “Verified as true and correct.”
5 Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. Randolph was
6 notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses lacked proper
7 verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that defect and has
8 never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.)
9 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988)
10 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide
11 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
12 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her
13 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to
14 mandatory sanctions.
15 Plaintiff’s Response is at Odds with Oral Representations. During late 2022 and early
16 2023 when the parties were conducting depositions, Randolph’s counsel stated that he was in
17 contact with Ms. McCrae and would be scheduling her deposition. However, he never ultimately
18 deposed Ms. McCrae, which is why the CSU then requested her last known contact information
19 and the date(s) of contact with her. Rather than provide that information, Randolph simply
20 responded to both interrogatories: “unknown.” (Exh. G.) In light of the fact that Randolph’s
21 counsel stated he had been in contact with Ms. McCrae, it is nonresponsive and nonsensical to
22 state “unknown” in response to a request for her contact information and the dates of contact with
23 her. Randolph is deliberately withholding information that her counsel admitted he has in his
24 possession, and she has not provided any justification for withholding that information.
25 A party responding to interrogatories shall answer in a manner “as complete and
26 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code
27 Civ. Pro., § 2023.220, subd. (a).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
28 the truth in answering written interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for
3
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 sanctions. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes
2 omitted]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit,
3 it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of
4 explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s
5 responses violate these straightforward rules of responding to discovery. Therefore, the Court
6 should compel her to supplement her responses to special interrogatory 26.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
8 State all dates YOU or anyone acting on YOUR behalf sent or received any
9 COMMUNICATION, or attempted to send or receive any COMMUNICATION, to or from
10 witness Robyn McCrae.
11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
12 Unknown.
13 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 IS
14 NECESSARY:
15 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. This interrogatory requests
16 Robyn McCrae’s, a former CSU employee, last known contact information. Randolph testified in
17 her deposition that Ms. McCrae was present outside the room when Randolph met with a senior
18 CSU employee to make various complaints that from the basis for her retaliation causes of action.
19 Randolph testified that she believes Ms. McCrae witnessed the alleged retaliator evesdrop on that
20 meeting and that Ms. McCrae observed the alleged retaliator become visibly angry. Thus, Ms.
21 McCrae is a key witness Thus, Ms. McCrae is a key witness, and the information sought by this
22 interrogatory is necessary to interview her and/or subpoena her for a deposition. (Deschler Decl.,
23 ¶ 2)
24 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by
25 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a);
26 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that
27 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the
28 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State
4
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then
2 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare)
3 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.)
4 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the
5 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, they merely state: “Verified as true and correct.”
6 Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. Randolph was
7 notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses lacked proper
8 verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that defect and has
9 never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, Exhs. L, O.)
10 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988)
11 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide
12 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
13 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her
14 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to
15 mandatory sanctions.
16 Plaintiff’s Response is Inadequate and at Odds with Oral Representations. During late
17 2022 and early 2023 when the parties were conducting depositions, Randolph’s counsel stated
18 that he was in contact with Ms. McCrae and would be scheduling her deposition. However, he
19 never ultimately deposed Ms. McCrae, which is why the CSU then requested her last known
20 contact information and the date(s) of contact with her. Rather than provide that information,
21 Randolph simply responded to both interrogatories: “unknown.” (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) In light
22 of the fact that Randolph’s counsel stated he had been in contact with Ms. McCrae, it is
23 nonresponsive and nonsensical to state “unknown” in response to a request for her contact
24 information and the dates of contact with her. Randolph is deliberately withholding information
25 that her counsel admitted he has in his possession, and she has not provided any justification for
26 withholding that information.
27 A party responding to interrogatories shall answer in a manner “as complete and
28 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code
5
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 Civ. Pro., § 2023.220, subd. (a).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
2 the truth in answering written interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for
3 sanctions. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes
4 omitted]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit,
5 it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of
6 explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s
7 responses violate these straightforward rules of responding to discovery. Therefore, the Court
8 should compel her to supplement her responses to special interrogatory 27.
9 FORM INTERROGATORIES – EMPLOYMENT LAW, SET ONE
10 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 217.1:
11 Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an
12 unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:
13 (a) state the number of the request;
14 (b) state all facts upon which you base your response;
15 (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have
16 knowledge of those facts; and
17 (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and
18 state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT
19 or thing.
20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 217.1:
21 For Responses 1-9, 12, 14 and 16:
22 Facts: The facts are contained in all depositions taken to date, all documents produced by
23 Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended).
24 People who have knowledge of these facts:
25 Cynthia Daley, (defendant) Deborah Larson, Lori Fuentes, Stephanie Pouldevart, Taylor
26 Herren, Tim LaSalle, Gayle Hutchinson, Dylan Saake, James Pushnik, Michal Hanson, Alyssa
27 Myers, Patrick Lowe, Michale Chavarria, John Unruh, Daniel Grassian, Jennifer Mays, Pamela
28 Hollis, Eileen Chavez, Stephanie Neuhart, Sheryl Woodward, Kim Williams, Robyn McCrea,
6
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 Francine Divine, Jose Diaz, Carl Pittman, Lauri Henry, Mike Thorpe, Jed Wyrick, Traci
2 Stumbaugh, Stephen Cummins, Lynn Taylor, Linda Vidovich, Lori Adrian, Regina Simpson,
3 Holly Hunt, Sandy Parsons-Ellis, Mike Guzzi, Cheri Chastain, Jeni Kitchell, Mark Stemen, Scott
4 Kodai, Nathaniel Millard, Ann Sherman, Jamie Clyde, Nani Teves, Tanya Ruiz, Eli Goodsell,
5 Travis Souders, Denise Crosswhite, Timothy Sistrunk, Sandrine Matiasek, Liz Connors, Barbara
6 Johnson, Jessica Bourne, Priya Tuvell, Maria Giovanni, Lee Altier, Garrett Liles, Colleen
7 Hatfield, William Loker, Jesse Dizard, Chris Fosen, Todd Green, David Eaton, Sheryl Karas,
8 Carin Dorghali, and Natalie Hanson (Orion 5/10/18 article author).
9 Identify all Documents: All depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff
10 and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended).
11 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 217.1 IS
12 NECESSARY:
13 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. Form Interrogatory
14 (Employment Law) No. 217.1 is a standard form interrogatory commonly used in employment
15 litigation. It assists in identifying qualified admissions or denials, facts which support the
16 qualified admission or denial, and people or documents supporting the qualified admission or
17 denial. In this case, the CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she
18 admitted only three of them (11, 13, and 15). (Exh. I.) The CSU also propounded Form
19 Interrogatories—Employment Law, no. 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an
20 unqualified admission,” that Randolph state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which
21 she based her response to the request for admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of
22 those facts, and (d) identify all documents supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served
23 responses to Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Deschler
24 Decl., ¶ 5.)
25 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by
26 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a);
27 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that
28 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the
7
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State
2 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then
3 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare)
4 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.)
5 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the
6 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, the verifications merely state: “Verified as true
7 and correct.” Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.
8 Randolph was notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses
9 lacked proper verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that
10 defect and has never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9,
11 Exhs. L, O.)
12 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988)
13 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide
14 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
15 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her
16 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to
17 mandatory sanctions.
18 Plaintiff’s Response is Inadequate. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that each
19 response to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information
20 reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subdivs. (a),
21 (b).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written
22 interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for sanctions. (Scheiding v.
23 Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes omitted]; see Code Civ.
24 Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide
25 “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v.
26 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s responses to Form Interrogatories
27 (Employment Law), No. 217.1 violate these straightforward rules for responding to discovery.
28
8
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 The CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only three
2 of them. The CSU propounded Form Interrogatories (Employment Law), No. 217.1, which
3 requires “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” that Randolph state (a) the
4 number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her response to the request for admission,
5 (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all documents supporting
6 her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories (Employment Law),
7 Set One on February 2, 2024. However, her responses failed to provide responsive information
8 and are deficient in at least three respects. First, Randolph did not unequivocally admit thirteen
9 requests for admissions, but only purported to address twelve of those requests in response to this
10 interrogatory. Second, Randolph failed to separately provide facts, persons, and documents
11 supporting her response to “each” separate request for admission, and instead just provided a
12 block response under four headings for “Response,” “Facts,” “People who have knowledge of
13 these facts,” and “Identify all documents.” Third, Randolph failed to actually supply any facts,
14 and merely stated “The facts are contained in all depositions taken to date, all documents
15 produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended).” Fourth, Randolph similarly
16 failed to identify responsive documents and instead stated, “All depositions taken to date, all
17 documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended).”
18 Randolph failed to provide complete responses and must separately, for each request for
19 admission that she did not admit (i.e., all but 11, 13, and 15), separately provide all specific facts,
20 witnesses, and documents that support that failure to admit. Her response is thus incomplete and
21 evasive, and she should be compelled to provide further responses that comply with the Code and
22 are responsive to the information requested.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
25 IDENTIFY by Bates number and date all DOCUMENTS referred to in response to
26 defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set No. 1, number 217.1, which is being
27 propounded herewith.
28
9
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
2 Unknown.
3 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36 IS NECESSARY:
4 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. This Special Interrogatory
5 simply requires Randolph to identify by Bates number any documents supporting her response to
6 Form Interrogatory 217.1. It is necessary to have the documents identified by Bates number
7 because literally over one million pages of documents have been produced in this action, and it is
8 otherwise difficult to identify documents in a meaningful way for the parties to find and utilize
9 them in this litigation.
10 Form Interrogatory (Employment Law) No. 217.1 is a standard form interrogatory
11 commonly used in employment litigation. It assists in identifying facts that support the qualified
12 admission or denial, and people or documents supporting the qualified admission or denial. In
13 this case, the CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only
14 three of them. (Exh. I.) The CSU also propounded Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, no.
15 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” that Randolph
16 state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her response to the request for
17 admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all documents
18 supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories—
19 Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.)
20 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by
21 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a);
22 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that
23 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the
24 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State
25 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then
26 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare)
27 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.)
28
10
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the
2 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, the verifications merely state: “Verified as true
3 and correct.” Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.
4 Randolph was notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses
5 lacked proper verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that
6 defect and has never provided any justification for refusing to do so.
7 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988)
8 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide
9 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
10 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her
11 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to
12 mandatory sanctions.
13 Plaintiff’s Response is Inadequate. First, Randolph failed to adequately respond to Form
14 Interrogatory (Employment Law), No. 217.1. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that each
15 response to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information
16 reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subdivs. (a),
17 (b).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written
18 interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for sanctions. (Scheiding v.
19 Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes omitted]; see Code Civ.
20 Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide
21 “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v.
22 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s responses to Form Interrogatories
23 (Employment Law), No. 217.1 violate these straightforward rules for responding to discovery.
24 The CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only three
25 of them (11, 13, and 15). The CSU propounded Form Interrogatories (Employment Law), No.
26 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” that Randolph
27 state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her response to the request for
28 admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all documents
11
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
1 supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories
2 (Employment Law), Set One on February 2, 2024. However, her responses failed to provide
3 responsive information and are deficient in at least three respects. But, of relevance to this
4 Special Interrogatory, Randolph similarly failed to identify responsive documents and instead
5 stated, “All depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the
6 Complaint (as amended).” Randolph failed to provide complete responses and must separately,
7 for each request for admission that she did not admit, identify documents that support that failure
8 to admit. Her response is thus incomplete and evasive, and she should be compelled to provide
9 further responses that comply with the Code and are responsive to the information requested.
10 Second, in light of Randolph’s inadequate response to Form Interrogatory (Employment
11 Law), No. 217.1, her response to this Special Interrogatory is necessarily improper as well, since
12 she fails to substantively respond to either as required. Randolph should therefore be compelled
13 to provide a substantive response that identifies all documents by Bates numbers she was required
14 to identify, as requested.
15 Dated: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
16 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
17
18
19
JERRY J. DESCHLER
20 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
21 Board of Trustees of the California State
University, which is the State of California
22 acting in its higher education capacity
(erroneously sued as “Trustees of the
23 California State University, State of
California”) and Cynthia Daleyon
24
SA2019102196
25 37936989.docx
26
27
28
12
Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
Case Name: Teresa Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, et al.
No.: 19CV01226
I declare:
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter.
On March 26, 2024, I served the attached DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail addressed as
follows:
Thomas Dimitre
Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC
E-mail Address: dimitre@mind.net
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 26,
2024, at Sacramento, California.
Christopher R. Irby S/ Christopher R. Irby
Declarant Signature
SA2019102196
37965075.docx
Preview
1 ROB BONTA 3/26/2024 Attorney General of California 2 JERRY J. DESCHLER Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 State Bar No. 215691 1300 I Street, Suite 125 4 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 5 Telephone: (916) 210-7871 Fax: (916) 324-5567 6 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 7 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in its higher 8 education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the California State University, State of 9 California”) and Cynthia Daley 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF BUTTE 12 CIVIL DIVISION 13 14 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE 17 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO 18 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF FOR SANCTIONS 19 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Date: April 24, 2024 20 AN INDIVIDUAL,, Time: 9:00 am Dept: 6 21 Defendant. Judge: The Honorable Stephen E. Benson 22 Trial Date: Action Filed: April 24, 2019 23 24 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Defendant Board of Trustees of the 25 California State University, at the California State University, Chico campus (the “CSU”), 26 provides the following Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to 27 Interrogatories and Motion for Sanctions. 28 1 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 As set forth below, the CSU seeks to compel further responses to inadequate responses to 2 the following written discovery requests: 3 • Special Interrogatories, Set Two, interrogatories 26-27 (Exh. G); 4 • Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set one, interrogatory 217.1 (Exh. J); and 5 • Special Interrogatories, Set Three, interrogatory 36 (Exh. K). 6 Randolph’s responses do not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons set 7 forth below. Additionally, Randolph has never provided verifications under oath as required by 8 the Code of Civil Procedure for any of her responses. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 11 State the last known contact information for witness Robyn McCrae. 12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 13 Unknown. 14 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 IS NECESSARY: 15 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. This interrogatory requests 16 Robyn McCrae’s, a former CSU employee, last known contact information. Randolph testified in 17 her deposition that Ms. McCrae was present outside the room when Randolph met with a senior 18 CSU employee to make various complaints that from the basis for her retaliation causes of action. 19 Randolph testified that she believes Ms. McCrae witnessed the alleged retaliator evesdrop on that 20 meeting and that Ms. McCrae observed the alleged retaliator become visibly angry. Thus, Ms. 21 McCrae is a key witness, and the information sought by this interrogatory is necessary to 22 interview her and/or subpoena her for a deposition. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) 23 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by 24 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 25 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that 26 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the 27 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State 28 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then 2 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare) 2 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.) 3 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the 4 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, they merely state: “Verified as true and correct.” 5 Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. Randolph was 6 notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses lacked proper 7 verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that defect and has 8 never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.) 9 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 10 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide 11 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. 12 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her 13 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to 14 mandatory sanctions. 15 Plaintiff’s Response is at Odds with Oral Representations. During late 2022 and early 16 2023 when the parties were conducting depositions, Randolph’s counsel stated that he was in 17 contact with Ms. McCrae and would be scheduling her deposition. However, he never ultimately 18 deposed Ms. McCrae, which is why the CSU then requested her last known contact information 19 and the date(s) of contact with her. Rather than provide that information, Randolph simply 20 responded to both interrogatories: “unknown.” (Exh. G.) In light of the fact that Randolph’s 21 counsel stated he had been in contact with Ms. McCrae, it is nonresponsive and nonsensical to 22 state “unknown” in response to a request for her contact information and the dates of contact with 23 her. Randolph is deliberately withholding information that her counsel admitted he has in his 24 possession, and she has not provided any justification for withholding that information. 25 A party responding to interrogatories shall answer in a manner “as complete and 26 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code 27 Civ. Pro., § 2023.220, subd. (a).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 28 the truth in answering written interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for 3 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 sanctions. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes 2 omitted]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit, 3 it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of 4 explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s 5 responses violate these straightforward rules of responding to discovery. Therefore, the Court 6 should compel her to supplement her responses to special interrogatory 26. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 8 State all dates YOU or anyone acting on YOUR behalf sent or received any 9 COMMUNICATION, or attempted to send or receive any COMMUNICATION, to or from 10 witness Robyn McCrae. 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 12 Unknown. 13 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 IS 14 NECESSARY: 15 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. This interrogatory requests 16 Robyn McCrae’s, a former CSU employee, last known contact information. Randolph testified in 17 her deposition that Ms. McCrae was present outside the room when Randolph met with a senior 18 CSU employee to make various complaints that from the basis for her retaliation causes of action. 19 Randolph testified that she believes Ms. McCrae witnessed the alleged retaliator evesdrop on that 20 meeting and that Ms. McCrae observed the alleged retaliator become visibly angry. Thus, Ms. 21 McCrae is a key witness Thus, Ms. McCrae is a key witness, and the information sought by this 22 interrogatory is necessary to interview her and/or subpoena her for a deposition. (Deschler Decl., 23 ¶ 2) 24 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by 25 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 26 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that 27 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the 28 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State 4 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then 2 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare) 3 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.) 4 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the 5 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, they merely state: “Verified as true and correct.” 6 Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. Randolph was 7 notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses lacked proper 8 verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that defect and has 9 never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, Exhs. L, O.) 10 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 11 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide 12 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. 13 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her 14 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to 15 mandatory sanctions. 16 Plaintiff’s Response is Inadequate and at Odds with Oral Representations. During late 17 2022 and early 2023 when the parties were conducting depositions, Randolph’s counsel stated 18 that he was in contact with Ms. McCrae and would be scheduling her deposition. However, he 19 never ultimately deposed Ms. McCrae, which is why the CSU then requested her last known 20 contact information and the date(s) of contact with her. Rather than provide that information, 21 Randolph simply responded to both interrogatories: “unknown.” (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) In light 22 of the fact that Randolph’s counsel stated he had been in contact with Ms. McCrae, it is 23 nonresponsive and nonsensical to state “unknown” in response to a request for her contact 24 information and the dates of contact with her. Randolph is deliberately withholding information 25 that her counsel admitted he has in his possession, and she has not provided any justification for 26 withholding that information. 27 A party responding to interrogatories shall answer in a manner “as complete and 28 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code 5 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 Civ. Pro., § 2023.220, subd. (a).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 2 the truth in answering written interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for 3 sanctions. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes 4 omitted]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit, 5 it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of 6 explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s 7 responses violate these straightforward rules of responding to discovery. Therefore, the Court 8 should compel her to supplement her responses to special interrogatory 27. 9 FORM INTERROGATORIES – EMPLOYMENT LAW, SET ONE 10 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 217.1: 11 Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an 12 unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: 13 (a) state the number of the request; 14 (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; 15 (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have 16 knowledge of those facts; and 17 (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and 18 state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT 19 or thing. 20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 217.1: 21 For Responses 1-9, 12, 14 and 16: 22 Facts: The facts are contained in all depositions taken to date, all documents produced by 23 Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended). 24 People who have knowledge of these facts: 25 Cynthia Daley, (defendant) Deborah Larson, Lori Fuentes, Stephanie Pouldevart, Taylor 26 Herren, Tim LaSalle, Gayle Hutchinson, Dylan Saake, James Pushnik, Michal Hanson, Alyssa 27 Myers, Patrick Lowe, Michale Chavarria, John Unruh, Daniel Grassian, Jennifer Mays, Pamela 28 Hollis, Eileen Chavez, Stephanie Neuhart, Sheryl Woodward, Kim Williams, Robyn McCrea, 6 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 Francine Divine, Jose Diaz, Carl Pittman, Lauri Henry, Mike Thorpe, Jed Wyrick, Traci 2 Stumbaugh, Stephen Cummins, Lynn Taylor, Linda Vidovich, Lori Adrian, Regina Simpson, 3 Holly Hunt, Sandy Parsons-Ellis, Mike Guzzi, Cheri Chastain, Jeni Kitchell, Mark Stemen, Scott 4 Kodai, Nathaniel Millard, Ann Sherman, Jamie Clyde, Nani Teves, Tanya Ruiz, Eli Goodsell, 5 Travis Souders, Denise Crosswhite, Timothy Sistrunk, Sandrine Matiasek, Liz Connors, Barbara 6 Johnson, Jessica Bourne, Priya Tuvell, Maria Giovanni, Lee Altier, Garrett Liles, Colleen 7 Hatfield, William Loker, Jesse Dizard, Chris Fosen, Todd Green, David Eaton, Sheryl Karas, 8 Carin Dorghali, and Natalie Hanson (Orion 5/10/18 article author). 9 Identify all Documents: All depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff 10 and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended). 11 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 217.1 IS 12 NECESSARY: 13 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. Form Interrogatory 14 (Employment Law) No. 217.1 is a standard form interrogatory commonly used in employment 15 litigation. It assists in identifying qualified admissions or denials, facts which support the 16 qualified admission or denial, and people or documents supporting the qualified admission or 17 denial. In this case, the CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she 18 admitted only three of them (11, 13, and 15). (Exh. I.) The CSU also propounded Form 19 Interrogatories—Employment Law, no. 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an 20 unqualified admission,” that Randolph state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which 21 she based her response to the request for admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of 22 those facts, and (d) identify all documents supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served 23 responses to Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Deschler 24 Decl., ¶ 5.) 25 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by 26 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 27 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that 28 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the 7 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State 2 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then 3 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare) 4 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.) 5 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the 6 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, the verifications merely state: “Verified as true 7 and correct.” Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. 8 Randolph was notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses 9 lacked proper verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that 10 defect and has never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, 11 Exhs. L, O.) 12 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 13 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide 14 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. 15 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her 16 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to 17 mandatory sanctions. 18 Plaintiff’s Response is Inadequate. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that each 19 response to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information 20 reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subdivs. (a), 21 (b).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written 22 interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for sanctions. (Scheiding v. 23 Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes omitted]; see Code Civ. 24 Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide 25 “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. 26 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s responses to Form Interrogatories 27 (Employment Law), No. 217.1 violate these straightforward rules for responding to discovery. 28 8 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 The CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only three 2 of them. The CSU propounded Form Interrogatories (Employment Law), No. 217.1, which 3 requires “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” that Randolph state (a) the 4 number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her response to the request for admission, 5 (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all documents supporting 6 her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories (Employment Law), 7 Set One on February 2, 2024. However, her responses failed to provide responsive information 8 and are deficient in at least three respects. First, Randolph did not unequivocally admit thirteen 9 requests for admissions, but only purported to address twelve of those requests in response to this 10 interrogatory. Second, Randolph failed to separately provide facts, persons, and documents 11 supporting her response to “each” separate request for admission, and instead just provided a 12 block response under four headings for “Response,” “Facts,” “People who have knowledge of 13 these facts,” and “Identify all documents.” Third, Randolph failed to actually supply any facts, 14 and merely stated “The facts are contained in all depositions taken to date, all documents 15 produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended).” Fourth, Randolph similarly 16 failed to identify responsive documents and instead stated, “All depositions taken to date, all 17 documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint (as amended).” 18 Randolph failed to provide complete responses and must separately, for each request for 19 admission that she did not admit (i.e., all but 11, 13, and 15), separately provide all specific facts, 20 witnesses, and documents that support that failure to admit. Her response is thus incomplete and 21 evasive, and she should be compelled to provide further responses that comply with the Code and 22 are responsive to the information requested. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 25 IDENTIFY by Bates number and date all DOCUMENTS referred to in response to 26 defendant’s Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set No. 1, number 217.1, which is being 27 propounded herewith. 28 9 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 2 Unknown. 3 REASONS FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36 IS NECESSARY: 4 The Information Sought is Directly Relevant and Material. This Special Interrogatory 5 simply requires Randolph to identify by Bates number any documents supporting her response to 6 Form Interrogatory 217.1. It is necessary to have the documents identified by Bates number 7 because literally over one million pages of documents have been produced in this action, and it is 8 otherwise difficult to identify documents in a meaningful way for the parties to find and utilize 9 them in this litigation. 10 Form Interrogatory (Employment Law) No. 217.1 is a standard form interrogatory 11 commonly used in employment litigation. It assists in identifying facts that support the qualified 12 admission or denial, and people or documents supporting the qualified admission or denial. In 13 this case, the CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only 14 three of them. (Exh. I.) The CSU also propounded Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, no. 15 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” that Randolph 16 state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her response to the request for 17 admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all documents 18 supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories— 19 Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.) 20 Plaintiff Did Not Verify Her Response. Responses to discovery must be accompanied by 21 a verification under oath by the responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 22 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that 23 the verification must include the following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the 24 responses are true; (2) an affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State 25 of California; and (3) the place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then 26 provides that the certification be “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare) 27 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.) 28 10 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 Randolph’s response did not include any of the above required elements, including the 2 required oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, the verifications merely state: “Verified as true 3 and correct.” Her “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. 4 Randolph was notified in the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses 5 lacked proper verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that 6 defect and has never provided any justification for refusing to do so. 7 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 8 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide 9 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. 10 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her 11 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to 12 mandatory sanctions. 13 Plaintiff’s Response is Inadequate. First, Randolph failed to adequately respond to Form 14 Interrogatory (Employment Law), No. 217.1. The Code of Civil Procedure requires that each 15 response to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information 16 reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subdivs. (a), 17 (b).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written 18 interrogatories,” and responses that are evasive are grounds for sanctions. (Scheiding v. 19 Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 [internal quotes omitted]; see Code Civ. 20 Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is specific and explicit, it is improper to provide 21 “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. 22 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. Randolph’s responses to Form Interrogatories 23 (Employment Law), No. 217.1 violate these straightforward rules for responding to discovery. 24 The CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only three 25 of them (11, 13, and 15). The CSU propounded Form Interrogatories (Employment Law), No. 26 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an unqualified admission,” that Randolph 27 state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her response to the request for 28 admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and (d) identify all documents 11 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories 2 (Employment Law), Set One on February 2, 2024. However, her responses failed to provide 3 responsive information and are deficient in at least three respects. But, of relevance to this 4 Special Interrogatory, Randolph similarly failed to identify responsive documents and instead 5 stated, “All depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the 6 Complaint (as amended).” Randolph failed to provide complete responses and must separately, 7 for each request for admission that she did not admit, identify documents that support that failure 8 to admit. Her response is thus incomplete and evasive, and she should be compelled to provide 9 further responses that comply with the Code and are responsive to the information requested. 10 Second, in light of Randolph’s inadequate response to Form Interrogatory (Employment 11 Law), No. 217.1, her response to this Special Interrogatory is necessarily improper as well, since 12 she fails to substantively respond to either as required. Randolph should therefore be compelled 13 to provide a substantive response that identifies all documents by Bates numbers she was required 14 to identify, as requested. 15 Dated: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 16 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 17 18 19 JERRY J. DESCHLER 20 Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 21 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California 22 acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the 23 California State University, State of California”) and Cynthia Daleyon 24 SA2019102196 25 37936989.docx 26 27 28 12 Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL Case Name: Teresa Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, et al. No.: 19CV01226 I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. On March 26, 2024, I served the attached DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail addressed as follows: Thomas Dimitre Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC E-mail Address: dimitre@mind.net I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 26, 2024, at Sacramento, California. Christopher R. Irby S/ Christopher R. Irby Declarant Signature SA2019102196 37965075.docx