Preview
3/26/2024
1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
2 PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 JERRY J. DESCHLER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 215691
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916) 210-7871
Fax: (916) 324-5567
7 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
8 Board of Trustees of the California State University,
which is the State of California acting in its higher
9 education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees
of the California State University, State of
10 California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF BUTTE
13 CIVIL DIVISION
14
15
TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226
16
Plaintiff,
17
v. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF
18 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY,
AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Date: April 24, 2024
21 AN INDIVIDUAL,, Time: 9:00 am
Dept: 6
22 Defendant. Judge: The Honorable Stephen E.
Benson
23 Trial Date:
Action Filed: April 24, 2019
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University, at the California State
3 University, Chico campus (the “CSU”) seeks to compel Plaintiff Teresa Randolph’s (“Randolph”)
4 to provide proper responses to the following interrogatories:
5 • Special Interrogatories, Set Two, interrogatories 26-27 (Exh. G);
6 • Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set one, interrogatory 217.1 (Exh. J; and
7 • Special Interrogatories, Set Three, interrogatory 36 (Exh. K).
8 In addition to those responses not being adequate, Randolph did not respond to Request for
9 Production of Documents, Set Three, whatsoever. Additionally, Randolph has not provided
10 proper verifications under oath to any of her discovery responses, and has not provided any
11 responsive documents despite reassurances from her counsel that she would do so.
12 As set forth more fully below and in the CSU’s Separate Statement filed herewith, the CSU
13 is entitled to complete, straightforward discovery responses that comply with the Code of Civil
14 Procedure, and is entitled to have those responses verified under oath as required in order to avoid
15 unfair surprise at trial. Because Randolph has failed to comply or to provide any excuse for her
16 noncompliance, the Court “shall” issue monetary sanctions against Randolph and her counsel
17 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a).
18 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19 I. OVERVIEW OF LAWSUIT ALLEGATIONS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
20 This is an employment lawsuit arising out of Randolph’s dismissal from her employment at
21 CSU Chico. After demurrers and motions for judgment on the pleadings, ten causes of action
22 from Randolph’s Third Amended Complaint are alleged against the CSU and individual
23 defendant Cynthia Daley: (1) discrimination based on disability under the Fair employment and
24 Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation under the FEHA; (3) harassment under the FEHA; (4)
25 failure to prevent harassment and discrimination under the FEHA; (5) failure to provide
26 reasonable accommodation under the FEHA; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process under
27 the FEHA; (7) retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) intentional infliction of emotional
28
2
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 distress; (9) retaliation under the California Family Rights Act; and (10) defamation. (Deschler
2 Decl., ¶ 2.)
3 Trial was originally scheduled for December 6, 2021. On September 22, 2021, this Court
4 vacated the trial date on stipulation by the parties. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) No new trial date has
5 been set. (Ibid.) Defendants are ready to proceed to trial whenever trial should be set. (Deschler
6 Decl., ¶ Ibid.)
7 II. RANDOLPH FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE, VERIFIED RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY.
8 On October 18, 2023, defendant CSU propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and
9 Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two to Randolph. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 3.)
10 On November 17, 2023, defendant CSU propounded the following: Requests for
11 Admissions, Set One; 1 Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One (only interrogatory
12 217.1 was selected, which requests that Randolph state the factual basis for denying any of the
13 requests for admissions, and to identify all documents and witnesses supporting any of her
14 denials); Special Interrogatories, Set Three; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set
15 Three. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 4.)
16 Randolph served responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two on November 17, 2020.
17 (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.) She served responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Special
18 Interrogatories, Set Three, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (late) on
19 December 11, 2023. (Ibid.) Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories—
20 Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Ibid.)
21 Randolph never provided responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three.
22 (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.) To date, Randolph has not provided responsive documents. (Ibid.)
23 Additionally, none of her responses included proper verifications. (Ibid.)
24
25
26
1
Randolph’s responses to Requests for Admissions are not presently at issue. However,
27 several of the other discovery requests are derivative of the Requests for Admissions, and seek
information supporting her denials. Additionally, the CSU reserves the right to later seek cost of
28 proof sanctions for any and all denials later established to be unsupported by the evidence.
3
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 III. DEFENDANT MET AND CONFERRED, BUT RANDOLPH FAILED TO CURE THE
IDENTIFIED DEFECTS IN HER DISCOVERY RESPONSES.
2
Counsel for CSU sent a detailed meet and confer letter to Randolph’s counsel on December
3
28, 2023. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. L.) The letter identified deficiencies in Randolph’s
4
responses to the above discovery, requested that Randolph amend her responses and produce
5
responsive documents, and requested that Randolph provide proper verifications that comply with
6
California law. (Ibid.)
7
The parties exchanged several emails over the next few weeks in which Randolph’s counsel
8
expressed that he would see about amending the responses, and stated his desire to discuss the
9
responses via phone. He also requested extensions of time, which were granted. (Deschler Decl.,
10
¶ 7, Exh. M.) On February 1, 2024, Randolph’s counsel stated in an email, “I think the call will
11
be most effective once documents are produced.” (Ibid.)
12
On February 2, 2024, Randolph served the belated responses to the CSU’s Form
13
Interrogatories—Employment Law, and sent a response letter to the CSU’s initial meet and
14
confer letter. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. N.)
15
On February 12, 2024, counsel for CSU sent a further meet and confer letter, attempting
16
one last time to resolve the outstanding discovery issues, including the failure to respond to
17
Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, failure to produce any responsive documents as
18
promised, and failure to provide verifications for any of Randolph’s responses. (Deschler Decl., ¶
19
9, Exh. O.) Randolph’s counsel never responded. (Ibid.)
20
ARGUMENT
21
I. LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT’S
22 FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
23 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that a responding party’s responses “shall be as
24 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
25 permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) Where the responding
26 party fails to do so, the court may issue an order compelling compliance if answers to
27 interrogatories are evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code
28 Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The court “shall” impose monetary sanctions unless the
4
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 responding party “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
2 imposition of sanctions unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); see also Code Civ.
3 Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
4 II. RANDOLPH FAILED TO VERIFY HER RESPONSES AND REFUSES TO CURE THAT DEFECT.
5 As a preliminary matter, Randolph failed to properly verify her responses to any of the
6 discovery at issue.
7 Responses to discovery must be accompanied by a verification under oath by the
8 responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240,
9 subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that the verification must include the
10 following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the responses are true; (2) an
11 affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State of California; and (3) the
12 place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then provides that the certification be
13 “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
14 foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.)
15 Randolph’s responses include none of the above required elements, including the required
16 oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, they merely state: “Verified as true and correct.” Her
17 “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. Randolph was notified in
18 the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses lacked proper
19 verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that defect and has
20 never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, Exhs. L, O.)
21 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988)
22 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide
23 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp.
24 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her
25 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to
26 mandatory sanctions.
27
28
5
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 III. RANDOLPH UNREASONABLY REFUSES TO PROVIDE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION
SUPPORTING HER DENIAL OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.
2
The CSU propounded requests for admissions, and also propounded a form interrogatory
3
and two special interrogatories requesting information relating to Randolph failing to admit any
4
of the requests.
5
A. Randolph’s Response to Form Interrogatories Related to the CSU’s
6 Requests for Admissions are Inadequate.
7 Randolph failed to properly and fully respond to interrogatories relating to the CSU’s
8 requests for admissions.
9 The Code of Civil Procedure requires that each response to interrogatories must be “as
10 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
11 permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subdivs. (a), (b).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole
12 truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories,” and responses that are
13 evasive are grounds for sanctions. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64,
14 76 [internal quotes omitted]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is
15 specific and explicit, it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to
16 evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms.
17 Randolph’s responses to Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, no. 217.1, and special
18 interrogatory no. 36 violate these straightforward rules for responding to discovery.
19 The CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only three
20 of them. (Exh. I to Deschler Decl.) The CSU also propounded Form Interrogatories—
21 Employment Law, no. 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an unqualified
22 admission,” that Randolph state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her
23 response to the request for admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and
24 (d) identify all documents supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form
25 Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. J.)
26 However, her responses failed to provide responsive information and are deficient in at least three
27 respects. First, Randolph did not unequivocally admit thirteen requests for admissions, but only
28 purported to address twelve of those requests in response to this interrogatory. Second, Randolph
6
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 failed to separately set forth facts, persons, and documents supporting her response to “each”
2 separate request for admission, and instead just provided a block response under four headings for
3 “Response,” “Facts,” “People who have knowledge of these facts,” and “Identify all documents.”
4 Third, Randolph failed to actually supply any facts, and merely stated “The facts are contained in
5 all depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint
6 (as amended).” Fourth, Randolph similarly failed to identify responsive documents and instead
7 stated, “All depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the
8 Complaint (as amended).” Randolph failed to provide complete responses and must separately,
9 for each request for admission that she did not admit, provide all specific facts, witnesses, and
10 documents that support that failure to admit. Her response is thus incomplete and evasive, and
11 she should be compelled to provide further responses that comply with the Code and are
12 responsive to the information requested.
13 B. Randolph’s Response to Special Interrogatories Related to the CSU’s
Requests for Admissions are Inadequate.
14
Similarly, interrogatory no. 36 requests that Ms. Randolph identify by Bates number any
15
and all documents referred to in response to form interrogatory 217.1. Ms. Randolph improperly
16
failed to respond to that form interrogatory and is required to amend her response. Her failure to
17
respond to special interrogatory no. 36 is thus also improper, and she should be compelled to
18
provide a substantive response that identifies all documents she was required to identify, as
19
requested.
20
IV. RANDOLPH UNREASONABLY REFUSES TO PROVIDE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION
21 REGARDING A KEY WITNESS.
22 Special interrogatories 26 and 27 request last known contact information and the dates of
23 any communication with witness Robyn McCrae, a former CSU employee.
24 Randolph testified in her deposition that Ms. McCrae was present outside the room when
25 Randolph met with a senior CSU employee to make various complaints that from the basis for her
26 retaliation causes of action. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) Randolph testified that she believes Ms.
27 McCrae witnessed the alleged retaliator eavesdrop on that meeting and that Ms. McCrae observed
28 the alleged retaliator because visibly angry. (Ibid.) Thus, Ms. McCrae is a key witness.
7
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 During late 2022 and early 2023 when the parties were conducting depositions, Randolph’s
2 counsel stated that he was in contact with Ms. McCrae and would be scheduling her deposition.
3 (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) However, he never ultimately deposed Ms. McCrae, which is why the CSU
4 then requested her last known contact information and the date(s) of contact with her. (Ibid.)
5 Rather than provide that information, Randolph simply responded to both interrogatories:
6 “unknown.” (Exh. J [responses to special interrogatories 26-27].) In light of the fact that
7 Randolph’s counsel affirmatively stated he had been in contact with Ms. McCrae, it is
8 nonresponsive and nonsensical to state “unknown” in response to a request for her contact
9 information and the dates of contact with her. Randolph is deliberately withholding information
10 that her counsel admitted he has in his possession, and she has not provided any justification for
11 withholding that information. A party responding to interrogatories shall answer in a manner “as
12 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
13 permits.” (Code Civ. Pro., § 2023.220, subd. (a).) Randolph must do so here rather than evade
14 the straightforward questions being asked. Therefore, the Court should compel her to supplement
15 her responses to special interrogatories 26 and 27.
16 V. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS
17 Where a motion to compel discovery is granted, the Court may impose monetary sanctions.
18 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Such sanctions “shall” be imposed unless the court
19 finds that a party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other
20 circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d),
21 2023.030, subd. (a); Kravitz v. Sup. Ct. (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.) Moreover,
22 monetary sanctions are appropriate where responses contain “boilerplate” objections (objections
23 lacking in the specificity required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.240, subd. (b) even
24 without the necessity of a prior Court order. (See Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Sup. Ct.
25 (Amazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.)
26 In the present case, monetary sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney
27 because they have no valid grounds upon which to oppose the CSU’s Motion, let alone
28 substantial justification that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The discovery
8
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
(19CV01226)
1 responses at issue are evasive and blatantly deficient. The CSU made attempts to resolve this
2 needless discovery dispute, including granting extensions of time to respond to the CSU’s meet
3 and confer letters and to schedule telephone calls to resolve the dispute, but to no avail. The CSU
4 still does not have complete, unequivocal responses and does not believe it has all responsive
5 documents.
6 Accordingly, the CSU respectfully requests that this Court award monetary sanctions in the
7 amount of $5,775 for the reasonable attorneys fees and costs the Department has incurred to bring
8 this Motion. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 10.)
9 CONCLUSION
10 As set forth above, Randolph failed to provide complete, straightforward responses to
11 Special Interrogatories 26, 27, and 36 and Form Interrogatories—Employment Law 217.1. She
12 also failed to provide proper verifications for her discovery responses. Consequently, the Court
13 should grant the CSU’s motion to compel further responses.
14 Dated: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
15 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
16 PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
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”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra
24 Larson
25 SA2019102196
37918666.docx
26
27
28
9
Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES 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
3/26/2024 1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 2 PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 JERRY J. DESCHLER Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 215691 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916) 210-7871 Fax: (916) 324-5567 7 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 8 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in its higher 9 education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the California State University, State of 10 California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF BUTTE 13 CIVIL DIVISION 14 15 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF 18 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Date: April 24, 2024 21 AN INDIVIDUAL,, Time: 9:00 am Dept: 6 22 Defendant. Judge: The Honorable Stephen E. Benson 23 Trial Date: Action Filed: April 24, 2019 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University, at the California State 3 University, Chico campus (the “CSU”) seeks to compel Plaintiff Teresa Randolph’s (“Randolph”) 4 to provide proper responses to the following interrogatories: 5 • Special Interrogatories, Set Two, interrogatories 26-27 (Exh. G); 6 • Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set one, interrogatory 217.1 (Exh. J; and 7 • Special Interrogatories, Set Three, interrogatory 36 (Exh. K). 8 In addition to those responses not being adequate, Randolph did not respond to Request for 9 Production of Documents, Set Three, whatsoever. Additionally, Randolph has not provided 10 proper verifications under oath to any of her discovery responses, and has not provided any 11 responsive documents despite reassurances from her counsel that she would do so. 12 As set forth more fully below and in the CSU’s Separate Statement filed herewith, the CSU 13 is entitled to complete, straightforward discovery responses that comply with the Code of Civil 14 Procedure, and is entitled to have those responses verified under oath as required in order to avoid 15 unfair surprise at trial. Because Randolph has failed to comply or to provide any excuse for her 16 noncompliance, the Court “shall” issue monetary sanctions against Randolph and her counsel 17 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a). 18 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 I. OVERVIEW OF LAWSUIT ALLEGATIONS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 20 This is an employment lawsuit arising out of Randolph’s dismissal from her employment at 21 CSU Chico. After demurrers and motions for judgment on the pleadings, ten causes of action 22 from Randolph’s Third Amended Complaint are alleged against the CSU and individual 23 defendant Cynthia Daley: (1) discrimination based on disability under the Fair employment and 24 Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation under the FEHA; (3) harassment under the FEHA; (4) 25 failure to prevent harassment and discrimination under the FEHA; (5) failure to provide 26 reasonable accommodation under the FEHA; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process under 27 the FEHA; (7) retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) intentional infliction of emotional 28 2 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 distress; (9) retaliation under the California Family Rights Act; and (10) defamation. (Deschler 2 Decl., ¶ 2.) 3 Trial was originally scheduled for December 6, 2021. On September 22, 2021, this Court 4 vacated the trial date on stipulation by the parties. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) No new trial date has 5 been set. (Ibid.) Defendants are ready to proceed to trial whenever trial should be set. (Deschler 6 Decl., ¶ Ibid.) 7 II. RANDOLPH FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE, VERIFIED RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY. 8 On October 18, 2023, defendant CSU propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and 9 Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two to Randolph. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 3.) 10 On November 17, 2023, defendant CSU propounded the following: Requests for 11 Admissions, Set One; 1 Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One (only interrogatory 12 217.1 was selected, which requests that Randolph state the factual basis for denying any of the 13 requests for admissions, and to identify all documents and witnesses supporting any of her 14 denials); Special Interrogatories, Set Three; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 15 Three. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 4.) 16 Randolph served responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two on November 17, 2020. 17 (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.) She served responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, Special 18 Interrogatories, Set Three, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (late) on 19 December 11, 2023. (Ibid.) Randolph belatedly served responses to Form Interrogatories— 20 Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Ibid.) 21 Randolph never provided responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three. 22 (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5.) To date, Randolph has not provided responsive documents. (Ibid.) 23 Additionally, none of her responses included proper verifications. (Ibid.) 24 25 26 1 Randolph’s responses to Requests for Admissions are not presently at issue. However, 27 several of the other discovery requests are derivative of the Requests for Admissions, and seek information supporting her denials. Additionally, the CSU reserves the right to later seek cost of 28 proof sanctions for any and all denials later established to be unsupported by the evidence. 3 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 III. DEFENDANT MET AND CONFERRED, BUT RANDOLPH FAILED TO CURE THE IDENTIFIED DEFECTS IN HER DISCOVERY RESPONSES. 2 Counsel for CSU sent a detailed meet and confer letter to Randolph’s counsel on December 3 28, 2023. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. L.) The letter identified deficiencies in Randolph’s 4 responses to the above discovery, requested that Randolph amend her responses and produce 5 responsive documents, and requested that Randolph provide proper verifications that comply with 6 California law. (Ibid.) 7 The parties exchanged several emails over the next few weeks in which Randolph’s counsel 8 expressed that he would see about amending the responses, and stated his desire to discuss the 9 responses via phone. He also requested extensions of time, which were granted. (Deschler Decl., 10 ¶ 7, Exh. M.) On February 1, 2024, Randolph’s counsel stated in an email, “I think the call will 11 be most effective once documents are produced.” (Ibid.) 12 On February 2, 2024, Randolph served the belated responses to the CSU’s Form 13 Interrogatories—Employment Law, and sent a response letter to the CSU’s initial meet and 14 confer letter. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. N.) 15 On February 12, 2024, counsel for CSU sent a further meet and confer letter, attempting 16 one last time to resolve the outstanding discovery issues, including the failure to respond to 17 Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, failure to produce any responsive documents as 18 promised, and failure to provide verifications for any of Randolph’s responses. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 19 9, Exh. O.) Randolph’s counsel never responded. (Ibid.) 20 ARGUMENT 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT’S 22 FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. 23 The Code of Civil Procedure provides that a responding party’s responses “shall be as 24 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party 25 permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) Where the responding 26 party fails to do so, the court may issue an order compelling compliance if answers to 27 interrogatories are evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code 28 Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The court “shall” impose monetary sanctions unless the 4 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 responding party “acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the 2 imposition of sanctions unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); see also Code Civ. 3 Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 4 II. RANDOLPH FAILED TO VERIFY HER RESPONSES AND REFUSES TO CURE THAT DEFECT. 5 As a preliminary matter, Randolph failed to properly verify her responses to any of the 6 discovery at issue. 7 Responses to discovery must be accompanied by a verification under oath by the 8 responding party. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, 9 subd. (a).) The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that the verification must include the 10 following: (1) a certification under penalty of perjury that the responses are true; (2) an 11 affirmation that the responses are so certified under the laws of the State of California; and (3) the 12 place of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) The Code then provides that the certification be 13 “substantially the following form: . . . ‘I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the 14 foregoing is true and correct.’” (Id.) 15 Randolph’s responses include none of the above required elements, including the required 16 oath under penalty of perjury. Instead, they merely state: “Verified as true and correct.” Her 17 “verification” thus does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. Randolph was notified in 18 the December 28, 2023 and February 12, 2024 letters that her responses lacked proper 19 verifications and thus did not comply with California law, but she never cured that defect and has 20 never provided any justification for refusing to do so. (Deschler Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, Exhs. L, O.) 21 Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (See Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 22 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [directing trial court to impose sanctions for failure to provide 23 complete, verified discovery responses] [citing Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. 24 (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914].) Consequently, Randolph’s failure to properly verify her 25 responses to discovery renders the responses themselves nonexistent and subjects her to 26 mandatory sanctions. 27 28 5 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 III. RANDOLPH UNREASONABLY REFUSES TO PROVIDE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION SUPPORTING HER DENIAL OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. 2 The CSU propounded requests for admissions, and also propounded a form interrogatory 3 and two special interrogatories requesting information relating to Randolph failing to admit any 4 of the requests. 5 A. Randolph’s Response to Form Interrogatories Related to the CSU’s 6 Requests for Admissions are Inadequate. 7 Randolph failed to properly and fully respond to interrogatories relating to the CSU’s 8 requests for admissions. 9 The Code of Civil Procedure requires that each response to interrogatories must be “as 10 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party 11 permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subdivs. (a), (b).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole 12 truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories,” and responses that are 13 evasive are grounds for sanctions. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 14 76 [internal quotes omitted]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f).) Where the question is 15 specific and explicit, it is improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to 16 evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Ms. 17 Randolph’s responses to Form Interrogatories—Employment Law, no. 217.1, and special 18 interrogatory no. 36 violate these straightforward rules for responding to discovery. 19 The CSU propounded 16 requests for admissions to Randolph, and she admitted only three 20 of them. (Exh. I to Deschler Decl.) The CSU also propounded Form Interrogatories— 21 Employment Law, no. 217.1, which requires “for each response that is not an unqualified 22 admission,” that Randolph state (a) the number of the request, (b) all facts on which she based her 23 response to the request for admission, (c) identify all persons with knowledge of those facts, and 24 (d) identify all documents supporting her response. Randolph belatedly served responses to Form 25 Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One on February 2, 2024. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. J.) 26 However, her responses failed to provide responsive information and are deficient in at least three 27 respects. First, Randolph did not unequivocally admit thirteen requests for admissions, but only 28 purported to address twelve of those requests in response to this interrogatory. Second, Randolph 6 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 failed to separately set forth facts, persons, and documents supporting her response to “each” 2 separate request for admission, and instead just provided a block response under four headings for 3 “Response,” “Facts,” “People who have knowledge of these facts,” and “Identify all documents.” 4 Third, Randolph failed to actually supply any facts, and merely stated “The facts are contained in 5 all depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the Complaint 6 (as amended).” Fourth, Randolph similarly failed to identify responsive documents and instead 7 stated, “All depositions taken to date, all documents produced by Plaintiff and Defendants, the 8 Complaint (as amended).” Randolph failed to provide complete responses and must separately, 9 for each request for admission that she did not admit, provide all specific facts, witnesses, and 10 documents that support that failure to admit. Her response is thus incomplete and evasive, and 11 she should be compelled to provide further responses that comply with the Code and are 12 responsive to the information requested. 13 B. Randolph’s Response to Special Interrogatories Related to the CSU’s Requests for Admissions are Inadequate. 14 Similarly, interrogatory no. 36 requests that Ms. Randolph identify by Bates number any 15 and all documents referred to in response to form interrogatory 217.1. Ms. Randolph improperly 16 failed to respond to that form interrogatory and is required to amend her response. Her failure to 17 respond to special interrogatory no. 36 is thus also improper, and she should be compelled to 18 provide a substantive response that identifies all documents she was required to identify, as 19 requested. 20 IV. RANDOLPH UNREASONABLY REFUSES TO PROVIDE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION 21 REGARDING A KEY WITNESS. 22 Special interrogatories 26 and 27 request last known contact information and the dates of 23 any communication with witness Robyn McCrae, a former CSU employee. 24 Randolph testified in her deposition that Ms. McCrae was present outside the room when 25 Randolph met with a senior CSU employee to make various complaints that from the basis for her 26 retaliation causes of action. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) Randolph testified that she believes Ms. 27 McCrae witnessed the alleged retaliator eavesdrop on that meeting and that Ms. McCrae observed 28 the alleged retaliator because visibly angry. (Ibid.) Thus, Ms. McCrae is a key witness. 7 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 During late 2022 and early 2023 when the parties were conducting depositions, Randolph’s 2 counsel stated that he was in contact with Ms. McCrae and would be scheduling her deposition. 3 (Deschler Decl., ¶ 2.) However, he never ultimately deposed Ms. McCrae, which is why the CSU 4 then requested her last known contact information and the date(s) of contact with her. (Ibid.) 5 Rather than provide that information, Randolph simply responded to both interrogatories: 6 “unknown.” (Exh. J [responses to special interrogatories 26-27].) In light of the fact that 7 Randolph’s counsel affirmatively stated he had been in contact with Ms. McCrae, it is 8 nonresponsive and nonsensical to state “unknown” in response to a request for her contact 9 information and the dates of contact with her. Randolph is deliberately withholding information 10 that her counsel admitted he has in his possession, and she has not provided any justification for 11 withholding that information. A party responding to interrogatories shall answer in a manner “as 12 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party 13 permits.” (Code Civ. Pro., § 2023.220, subd. (a).) Randolph must do so here rather than evade 14 the straightforward questions being asked. Therefore, the Court should compel her to supplement 15 her responses to special interrogatories 26 and 27. 16 V. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS 17 Where a motion to compel discovery is granted, the Court may impose monetary sanctions. 18 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Such sanctions “shall” be imposed unless the court 19 finds that a party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other 20 circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d), 21 2023.030, subd. (a); Kravitz v. Sup. Ct. (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.) Moreover, 22 monetary sanctions are appropriate where responses contain “boilerplate” objections (objections 23 lacking in the specificity required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.240, subd. (b) even 24 without the necessity of a prior Court order. (See Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Sup. Ct. 25 (Amazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) 26 In the present case, monetary sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney 27 because they have no valid grounds upon which to oppose the CSU’s Motion, let alone 28 substantial justification that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The discovery 8 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (19CV01226) 1 responses at issue are evasive and blatantly deficient. The CSU made attempts to resolve this 2 needless discovery dispute, including granting extensions of time to respond to the CSU’s meet 3 and confer letters and to schedule telephone calls to resolve the dispute, but to no avail. The CSU 4 still does not have complete, unequivocal responses and does not believe it has all responsive 5 documents. 6 Accordingly, the CSU respectfully requests that this Court award monetary sanctions in the 7 amount of $5,775 for the reasonable attorneys fees and costs the Department has incurred to bring 8 this Motion. (Deschler Decl., ¶ 10.) 9 CONCLUSION 10 As set forth above, Randolph failed to provide complete, straightforward responses to 11 Special Interrogatories 26, 27, and 36 and Form Interrogatories—Employment Law 217.1. She 12 also failed to provide proper verifications for her discovery responses. Consequently, the Court 13 should grant the CSU’s motion to compel further responses. 14 Dated: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 15 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 16 PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 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”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra 24 Larson 25 SA2019102196 37918666.docx 26 27 28 9 Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 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