Preview
1 Cary Kletter (SBN 210230)
Rachel Hallam (SBN 306844)
2 Warren Lee (SBN 296955)
KLETTER LAW
3 1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 306
San Mateo, California 94402
4
(415) 434-3400
5 cary@kletter.law
warren@kletter.law
6
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS,
7 ROBERTO PEDRAZA, GUALBERTO MENENDEZ CACERES,
ROCIO CAMBRAY, LUZ EMILY RICHARDSON SAAVEDRA,
8 SALVADOR MONJARAS, VERONICA GIL RODRIGUEZ, SERGIO
LOPEZ, and SEBASTIAN LAZARO ORTIZ
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SONOMA
12
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
13
ROBERTO PEDRAZA and Case No. SCV-270624
14
GUALBERTO MENENDEZ CACERES,
15 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF
Plaintiffs, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
16 OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S
v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
17 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
RAUL VALDIVIA LEANOS DBA INTERROGATORIES AND FOR
18 VALDIVIA TRUCKING; and DOES 1-20, MONETARY SANCTIONS
INCLUSIVE,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs ROBERTO PEDRAZA (“PEDRAZA”), GUALBERTO MENENDEZ
23
CACERES (“CACERES”), ROCIO CAMBRAY (“CAMBRAY”), LUZ EMILY RICHARDSON
24
SAAVEDRA (“SAAVEDRA”), SALVADOR MONJARAS (“MONJARAS”), VERONICA GIL
25
RODRIGUEZ (“RODRIGUEZ”), SEBASTIAN LAZARO ORTIZ (“ORTIZ”) (collectively,
26
“Plaintiffs”) hereby opposes Defendant, Raul Valdivia Leanos dba Valdivia Trucking
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1
1
(“Defendant” or “VALDIVIA”)’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
2
and For Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”).
3 Defendant moves to compel further Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) based on invalid
4 assumptions that Plaintiffs’ SROG responses and amended responses are deficient despite being
5 code-compliant and complete, that Plaintiffs are able to provide detailed responses even though
6 Defendant has failed to produce complete wage records to Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs waived their
7 objections asserted in their written responses, that Plaintiffs’ application of California Code of
8 Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2030.230 was improper, and that Defendant’s meet and confer was
9 clear, specific, and instructive. Furthermore, Defendant failed to satisfy their meet and confer
10 efforts before filing this Motion.
In response to Defendant’s SROGs, Plaintiffs provided code-compliant written and
11
amended written SROG responses which consisted of fact statements and associated references to
12
supporting produced documents.
13
Accordingly, based on the information herein in addition to the Declaration of Warren Lee,
14
Plaintiffs request that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion in its entirety.
15
16
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
17
Plaintiffs are truck drivers who performed hauling services of various materials for their
18 former employer, Defendant VALDIVIA. Declaration of Warren Lee (“Lee Decl.”) at ¶ 5.
19 During Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs worked on private projects for
20 which they were entitled to regular wages and public works projects on behalf of the State of
21 California, Department of Transportation for which they were entitled to prevailing wages. Lee
22 Decl. at ¶ 6. Defendant has an unlawful practice of failing to accurately record Plaintiffs’ work
23 hours on one wage statement per pay period. Lee Decl. at ¶ 7. Instead, Defendant calculated
24 Plaintiffs’ work hours by separating them between regular wage and prevailing wage hours,
25 including overtime hours, on two separate wage statements each pay period, thereby making it
extremely difficult for Plaintiffs to track, reconcile, and calculate their wages, prevailing and
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
2
1
regular wage hours worked, and correct rate of pay accurately. Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 8, 9.
2
Plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit against Defendant on April 18, 2022 for wage claims and
3 labor code violations arising out of their employment. Lee Decl. at ¶ 10. Amended complaints
4 were filed on May 5, 2022 (First Amended Complaint) and August 16, 2022 (Second Amended
5 Complaint). Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 11-12; Exhibit A. Written discovery for both parties is ongoing. Lee
6 Decl. at ¶ 13. As part of discovery, Plaintiffs requested complete wage records during their
7 employment from Defendant. Lee Decl. at ¶ 14; Exhibit B. To date, Defendant has not produced
8 complete wage records and insists that they have produced all Plaintiffs’ wage records, despite
9 inexplicable missing gaps of Plaintiffs’ wage statements for periods of time. Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 15,
10 16; Exhibit C.
Defendant served Plaintiffs with Special Interrogatories, Set One on or around July 27,
11
2022. Lee Decl. at ¶ 19. Plaintiffs served timely code-compliant responses to Defendant on
12
December 12, 13, 19, 2023. Lee Decl. at ¶ 20; Exhibit D. Corresponding verifications followed
13
and were served on January 8, 2024. Lee Decl. at ¶ 21; Exhibit E. On December 21, 2023
14
Defendant’s counsel served a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs. Lee Decl. at ¶ 22. In response,
15
Plaintiffs provided timely amended responses (“First Amended”) on December 29, 2023. Lee
16
Decl. at ¶ 23; Exhibit F. Defendant sent a subsequent meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs on or
17
about January 24, 2024. Lee Decl. at ¶ 24; Exhibit G. On the letter, Defendant alleged that all of
18 Plaintiffs’ First Amended responses were deficient without going into any details whatsoever. Lee
19 Decl. at ¶ 25; Id. The letter was scant on any clear instructions, guidance, or details to Plaintiffs,
20 save for statements alleging that “all” of Plaintiffs’ amended responses were conclusory or lacked
21 any information. Lee Decl. at ¶ 26; Id. Plaintiffs made their best assessment of Defendant’s meet
22 and confer and served timely code compliant amended responses (“Second Amended”) on
23 February 2, 2024 to Defendant. Lee Decl. at ¶ 27; Exhibit H.
24 Without any additional communications from Defendant or attempts to informally address
25 written discovery issues, Defendant prematurely filed this Motion. Lee Decl. at ¶ 28. Plaintiffs
were not aware of the alleged SROG issues to their Second Amended responses until this Motion
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
3
1
was filed. Lee Decl. at ¶ 29. Plaintiffs’ counsel urged Defendant to continue engaging in the meet
2
and confer process, but Defendant ignored all such efforts. Lee Decl. at ¶ 30; Exhibit I. Plaintiffs
3 served Third Amended responses (“Third Amended”) to Defendant on April 11, 2024. Lee Decl. at
4 ¶ 31; Exhibit J.
5 For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion should be denied and no sanctions should be
6 awarded to Defendant as Plaintiffs’ provided code-compliant interrogatory responses and acted
7 with substantial justification.
8
9 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
10 A. Plaintiffs Fully Complied With Their Duty to Respond to Special Interrogatories
11 Under CCP §2030.210, Plaintiffs have fully complied with their duty to respond to
12 Defendant’s SROGs. A responding party must respond to interrogatories by answering, denying
13 that it has sufficient knowledge to answer, produce documents, or objecting to the interrogatory.
14 In Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s SROGs, Plaintiffs answered all SROGs by either
15 answering with fact statements, informing Defendant that they are unable to fully answer the
interrogatory at such time due to having insufficient information, asserting proper objections to
16
preserve their rights, or supplementing answers with associated records/documents with Bates
17
stamp references. In majority of instances, Plaintiffs’ written responses provided a combination of
18
the above. Contrary to Defendant’s beliefs, at no time did Plaintiffs merely provide a response or
19
amended response by simply referencing documents; rather, all cited documents in their answers
20
were included for purposes of supplementing Plaintiffs’ responses to the interrogatories.
21
Plaintiffs’ SROG responses are derived from incomplete wage information and documents
22
produced by Defendant. Plaintiffs made good-faith effort in requesting and acquiring complete
23
wage records from Defendant. However, Defendant has failed to do so. Without such pertinent
24 records, Plaintiffs are prevented from evaluating their wage claims and damages with any precise
25 particularity. As such, Plaintiffs’ SROG responses are complete to the extent possible based on the
26 lack of material information at their disposal.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
4
1
In total, Plaintiffs’ responses and amended responses are complete and compliant of the
2
Code and law.
3 B. Plaintiffs Complied With California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a)
4
Plaintiffs have fully complied with CCP §2030.300(a). CCP §2030.300(a) provides that a
5
propounding party to interrogatories may move to compel further responses if any of the
6
following:
7
(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete;
8 (2) Option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required
9 specification of those documents is inadequate;
10 (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
11
1. Plaintiffs’ Responses to the Interrogatories are Code Compliant and Complete
12
Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s SROGs are with merit, code compliant and complete.
13 Plaintiffs made good faith efforts to obtain complete wage records from Defendant. However,
14 despite Plaintiffs’ attempts at requesting missing wage statements from Defendant, no additional
15 wage statements have been produced by Defendant, nor have they provided valid explanations as
16 to their absence or whereabouts. [See Exhibit C].
17 Without complete wage records, Plaintiffs can only answer the interrogatories to the best of
18 their knowledge with the limited information given. The wage statements that were produced by
19 Defendant are insufficient and contain missing gaps of time of employment for Plaintiffs. As a
20 result, Plaintiffs are deprived of reviewing pertinent wage records, evaluating wages owed to them
by Defendant, hours worked, and assessing damages with any particularity whatsoever.
21
Defendant’s expectations of Plaintiffs to simply insert inaccurate information of wages or overtime
22
amounts owed and damages for the sake of answering the SROGs are not only false and reckless
23
statements but also imprudent towards Plaintiffs’ credibility.
24
When an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, a respondent to written discovery
25
should be answered to the extent possible. CCP §2030.250; CCP §2030.220(a)(6). This is exactly
26
what Plaintiffs did when answering Defendant’s SROGs. Plaintiffs provided facts that are based
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
5
1
on personal knowledge and incomplete documents produced by Defendant. Ironically, Defendant
2
argues in this Motion that Plaintiffs’ responses are evasive or incomplete even though the nature of
3 the incomplete wage statements originated from Defendant, who now expects Plaintiffs to give
4 fully detailed answers from documents on which Plaintiffs do not possess. Plaintiffs’ responses
5 were answered to the extent possible, and therefore, are code compliant and complete. CCP section
6 2030.300(a)(1).
7 2. Plaintiffs Exercised California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230 Properly
8 Plaintiffs properly exercised CCP §2030.230 as an option to answer Defendant’s SROGs.
9 §2030.230 provides:
10 "If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
11 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom
12 the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would
13 be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the
14 responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section …."
15 In response to Defendant’s SROGs, this is exactly what Plaintiffs did. As part of Plaintiffs’
16 responses, reference to documents on which all parties to the lawsuit share were applied in support
of fact statements given. Because Plaintiffs had already produced such documents previously on
17
Defendant, it is redundant and time consuming to compile and reproduce the same documents
18
again. As an option, Plaintiffs justifiably opted to provide Bates stamp references to such
19
documents to Defendant in their responses. CCP §2030.300(a)(2).
20
3. Plaintiffs’ Objections Asserted in the Special Interrogatories Responses are Proper and
21
With Merit
22
Defendant wrongly alleges that Plaintiffs’ objections are baseless. As a legal principle, if
23
an objection is not stated in response to written discovery that objection is waived. CCP
24 §2030.290; Scottsdale Ins. Co v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, Cal.App.4th.263. To avoid waiver,
25 Plaintiffs asserted all applicable objections in their SROG responses. Despite Defendant’s
26 argument, on every objection raised by Plaintiffs in response to a SROG, Plaintiffs provided an
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
6
1
answer (or amended answer) in correspondence to the requested interrogatory. Plaintiffs did not
2
ignore answering any SROGs by merely asserting objections. Plaintiffs provided an answer with
3 facts and/or references to supporting produced documents.
4 Plaintiffs’ objections carry merit. It is true that information sought by Defendant was
5 equally available to them and/or to a third party on which Plaintiffs have no control over. It is
6 further true that Defendant’s interrogatories seek information that encroaches on privileged
7 information pertaining to communications between Plaintiffs and their counsel with respect to
8 wage compensation owed by Defendant and associated damages. Such intimate details are
9 reasonably a subject matter of communication between Plaintiffs and counsel. In addition,
10 Defendant further seeks to have Plaintiffs provide calculations regarding damages owed to them,
thereby violating attorney work product. Likewise, similar reasoning applies to objections that call
11
for a legal conclusion, namely those interrogatories seeking specific amounts of wage
12
compensation owed and damages. CCP §2030.300(a)(3).
13
Moreover, it is also true that the interrogatories are overbroad as they do not indicate a
14
duration or range of time. For examples1, SROG No. 5 requests “Please set forth the number of
15
hours per week that you are claiming that you were not paid for pre and post trip inspections.”
16
SROG No. 6 asks, “Please set forth the amount of damages you are claiming for Defendant’s
17
failure to pay you for pre and post trip inspections.” Such interrogatories impose an unreasonable
18 burden on Plaintiffs as they are not in possession of complete wage records. Perkins v. Superior
19 Court of Los Angeles (1981) 118 CA3d 761, 764-765) Even if Plaintiffs did have complete wage
20 records, Plaintiffs still do not know how far back or forward in time to answer the interrogatories.
21 Id. As such, Plaintiffs’ objections raised in direct response to Defendant’s SROGs are indeed
22 proper. CCP §2030.300(a)(3).
23 Because Plaintiffs complied with the provisions under the Code, Defendant’s Motion is
24 unjustified and should be denied.
25
1
26 All Defendant’s SROGs to Plaintiffs are the same with a couple of variations between them. As such, the examples
herein used generally encompasses all of Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses and objections therein.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
7
1
C. Defendant Did Not Provide Complete Wage Records for Plaintiffs To Formulate And
2
Assess Damages Accurately
3
Defendant’s SROGs request are not as simple or straightforward as what Defendant
4
purports them to be. Defendant is aware that Plaintiffs do not have complete wage records, as
5
Plaintiffs have made several requests to Defendant with little success. Yet Defendant insists that
6
Plaintiffs should presumably know by memory or by using incomplete wage records the amount of
7
wages owed, amount of damages for failure to pay overtime, prevailing wage overtime hours per
8 week that were unpaid, as well as damages for failing to pay missed meal breaks accurately.
9 Moreover, Defendant utilizes an unlawful practice of giving Plaintiffs two separate wage
10 statements, one for regular wages and another for prevailing wages for each pay period. Each
11 statement, among other items, consists of total hours worked for prevailing wages or regular wages
12 worked, overtime, rate of pay, and reimbursement of business expenses. These documents are
13 essential for Plaintiffs to rely on before answering Defendant’s SROGs with accuracy, especially
14 questions relating, but are not limited to, unpaid wages, hours worked, particular dates, particular
15 job locations, and/or jobs performed (as mentioned in Defendant’s Motion, See Defendant’s
Memorandum of Points and Authority, p. 7, lines 1-7). Without complete records to rely on,
16
Plaintiffs cannot formulate detailed answers in response to Defendant’s interrogatories requests.
17
Plaintiffs’ responses are as complete to the extent possible given their circumstances, and
18
therefore, are code-compliant and complete. CCP §2030.250; CCP § 2030.220(a)(6).
19
20
D. Plaintiffs First Amended Responses Addressed The Issues On Defendant’s Meet And
21
Confer, Dated December 21, 2023
22
Defendant’s discovery issues with Plaintiffs’ original SROG responses were addressed in
23
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Responses or have been discussed above.
24
Contrary to Defendant’s beliefs, Defendant was not left to “speculate” on Plaintiffs’ First
25
Amended responses. Plaintiffs included amended answers to interrogatories that were at issue,
26
refined facts were added, or alternatively, a code compliant response explaining why Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
8
1
were unable to answer the request at such time were included, i.e., "Plaintiff has not received all
2
relevant informational documents to fully respond to this interrogatory, and that Discovery is
3 ongoing.” CCP §2030.210.
4 Defendant argues that there is no legal requirement compelling one party in a civil
5 discovery matter to simply figure out the other party’s claims and facts supporting the claims.
6 Conversely, the same is true that Plaintiffs cannot provide Defendant with answers that they do not
7 have due to material documents that are not in their possession or produced to them by Defendant.
8 Defendant further assumes incorrectly that Plaintiffs’ objections asserted in their
9 responses have been waived due to Plaintiff’s delayed verifications served on Defendant on
10 January 8, 2024. In Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, the court stated that “if
a response is within the statutory time period, that portion of the responses must be considered
11
timely notwithstanding the lack of verification … but does not result in a waiver of the
12
objections made….” Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App. 4th 651,
13
657-658). Applying the principles of Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc., Plaintiffs served their
14
written original responses to Defendant, including First and Second Amended responses
15
timely in accordance with statutory requirements and agreement with Defendant. This fact is
16
not disputed by Defendant. More importantly, although Plaintiffs’ verifications were delayed
17
briefly, Plaintiffs’ responses are deemed timely, and that all objections asserted in the SROGs
18 have not been waived. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs’ objections are properly preserved.
19
20 E. Defendant’s Meet and Confer, Dated January 24, 2024 Was Severely Lacking
21 And Deficient
22 Defendant’s meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel, dated January 24, 2024, was non-
23 instructive, vague and merely accusatory. The letter did not convey any guidance to Plaintiffs
24 whatsoever but instead broadly claimed that Plaintiffs’ First Amended responses were entirely
25 deficient, without explaining which SROGs in particular are at issue and how it may be remedied
by Plaintiffs.
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
9
1
Plaintiffs made a good-faith effort in interpreting Defendant’s insufficient meet and confer
2
letter. In response, Plaintiffs provided Second Amended responses with additional facts and Bates
3 stamp references to documents supporting their answers to corresponding SROGs. In totality,
4 Plaintiffs’ responses (original, First Amended and Second Amended responses) are code
5 compliant, and the answers provided are in direct response to the requested SROGs. As such,
6 Defendant’s claim that Plaintiffs’ responses are deficient is misleading.
7 Defendant also purports that Plaintiffs’ reliance on CCP §2030.230 is misplaced.
8 Defendant is wrong:
9 First, Plaintiffs did not waive their rights to assert CCP §2030.230 as part of their SROG
10 responses. Pursuant to Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, Plaintiffs’ responses are
timely. This includes Plaintiffs’ original responses, First Amended responses, and Second
11
Amended responses. Id.
12
Second, Plaintiffs’ objections asserted in their SROG responses are preserved pursuant to
13
Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, as discussed herein. Id.
14
Third, Defendant attempts to add an additional requirement to the statute for purposes of
15
bolstering an unsupported argument. Defendant insinuates that Plaintiffs are disqualified from
16
applying §2030.230 as a responsive answer because Defendant did not request for such a format.
17
However, nowhere in the statute provides such a requirement is necessary.
18 Fourth, Plaintiffs provided code compliant and complete responses. Defendant’s arguments
19 are grounded on the false assumption that they have produced all relevant wage records and
20 documents to Plaintiffs. However, Defendant’s assumption is incorrect. For the same reasons
21 discussed herein, Plaintiffs answered each interrogatory in good faith and to the best of their
22 knowledge based on the information that was readily available to them.
23 Lastly, Defendant wrongly asserts that Plaintiffs’ responses were merely citing
24 compilations of documents. Each of Plaintiffs’ responses and amended responses to Defendant’s
25 SROGs contain proper code compliant fact statements, objections in part, as well as references to
supplemental and supporting produced documents. The referenced citations were provided in
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
10
1
conjunction with fact statements.
2
For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ reliance on exercising CCP §2030.230 is justified and
3 proper.
4 F. Defendant’s Failed To Satisfy Their Meet and Confer Obligation To Resolve the
5 Discovery Issues Informally
6 CCP section 2030.300 provides that a party seeking to compel is required to have made a
7 “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution” regarding the discovery dispute.
8 CCP §2016.040. Moreover, “a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution requires
9 that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”
10 Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 CA 4th 1431-1439. Defendant failed on both accounts.
Defendant’s meet and confer letter, dated January 24, 2024 did not provide detailed or
11
adequate instructions. The letter offered little to no instructions or explanations as to how
12
Plaintiffs’ First Amended written responses were deficient. Instead, Defendant made broad and
13
sweeping statements that all of Plaintiffs’ First Amended responses were improper. When
14
Plaintiffs served their Second Amended written responses, Defendant deemed it the same without
15
any additional communications to Plaintiffs to remedy. Plaintiffs’ counsel was amicable and
16
willing to resolve the discovery issues with Defendant. However, Defendant’s counsel refused to
17
further engage and proceed with the meet and confer process. Rather than trying to reach an
18 informal discovery resolution, Defendant unreasonably closed this option and filed this Motion.
19 Plaintiffs’ counsel urged Defendant to continue discussing about the discovery issues informally,
20 but Defendant refused to do so. In good-faith, Plaintiffs served Third Amended responses (“Third
21 Amended”) to Defendant on April 11, 2024.
22 As such, Defendant failed to meet the requirements under the Code, and therefore, the
23 Motion should be denied.
24 G. Sanctions Are Not Warranted Because Plaintiffs Acted with Substantial Justification
25 Plaintiffs did not engage in the misuse of the discovery process to warrant sanctions.
26 Plaintiffs made a good faith effort to comply with Defendant’s SROG requests and correcting
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
11
1
alleged discovery deficiencies. Plaintiffs’ written responses, including First and Second Amended
2
responses, answered the interrogatories to their best ability based on their knowledge and to the
3 extent of the limited wage records produced to them. Contrary to Defendant’s beliefs, Defendant
4 produced incomplete wage records to Plaintiffs which denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to
5 accurately assess the amount of wages owed to them by Defendant for prevailing wages and
6 regular wages, overtime and damages in its entirety. Thus, Plaintiffs acted with substantial
7 justification in their discovery efforts. See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Frye) (2022)
8 84 CA5th 127, 139, 300 CR3d 225, 23.
9 Therefore, Plaintiffs did not engage in misuse of the discovery process and should not be
10 sanctioned. In addition, Defendant should not be awarded any attorneys’ fees and costs for filing
this Motion.
11
IV. CONCLUSION
12
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully requests an Order denying Defendant’s
13
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and For Monetary Sanctions and
14
denying Defendant of attorneys’ fees and costs for filing this Motion.
15
16
Dated: April 11, 2024 KLETTER LAW
17
18
Warren Lee
By:____________________________
19 Cary Kletter
Rachel Hallam
20 Warren Lee
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
12
Preview
1 Cary Kletter (SBN 210230) Rachel Hallam (SBN 306844) 2 Warren Lee (SBN 296955) KLETTER LAW 3 1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 306 San Mateo, California 94402 4 (415) 434-3400 5 cary@kletter.law warren@kletter.law 6 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS, 7 ROBERTO PEDRAZA, GUALBERTO MENENDEZ CACERES, ROCIO CAMBRAY, LUZ EMILY RICHARDSON SAAVEDRA, 8 SALVADOR MONJARAS, VERONICA GIL RODRIGUEZ, SERGIO LOPEZ, and SEBASTIAN LAZARO ORTIZ 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SONOMA 12 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 13 ROBERTO PEDRAZA and Case No. SCV-270624 14 GUALBERTO MENENDEZ CACERES, 15 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF Plaintiffs, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 16 OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 17 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL RAUL VALDIVIA LEANOS DBA INTERROGATORIES AND FOR 18 VALDIVIA TRUCKING; and DOES 1-20, MONETARY SANCTIONS INCLUSIVE, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs ROBERTO PEDRAZA (“PEDRAZA”), GUALBERTO MENENDEZ 23 CACERES (“CACERES”), ROCIO CAMBRAY (“CAMBRAY”), LUZ EMILY RICHARDSON 24 SAAVEDRA (“SAAVEDRA”), SALVADOR MONJARAS (“MONJARAS”), VERONICA GIL 25 RODRIGUEZ (“RODRIGUEZ”), SEBASTIAN LAZARO ORTIZ (“ORTIZ”) (collectively, 26 “Plaintiffs”) hereby opposes Defendant, Raul Valdivia Leanos dba Valdivia Trucking PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 1 (“Defendant” or “VALDIVIA”)’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 2 and For Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”). 3 Defendant moves to compel further Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) based on invalid 4 assumptions that Plaintiffs’ SROG responses and amended responses are deficient despite being 5 code-compliant and complete, that Plaintiffs are able to provide detailed responses even though 6 Defendant has failed to produce complete wage records to Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs waived their 7 objections asserted in their written responses, that Plaintiffs’ application of California Code of 8 Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2030.230 was improper, and that Defendant’s meet and confer was 9 clear, specific, and instructive. Furthermore, Defendant failed to satisfy their meet and confer 10 efforts before filing this Motion. In response to Defendant’s SROGs, Plaintiffs provided code-compliant written and 11 amended written SROG responses which consisted of fact statements and associated references to 12 supporting produced documents. 13 Accordingly, based on the information herein in addition to the Declaration of Warren Lee, 14 Plaintiffs request that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion in its entirety. 15 16 II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 17 Plaintiffs are truck drivers who performed hauling services of various materials for their 18 former employer, Defendant VALDIVIA. Declaration of Warren Lee (“Lee Decl.”) at ¶ 5. 19 During Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendant, Plaintiffs worked on private projects for 20 which they were entitled to regular wages and public works projects on behalf of the State of 21 California, Department of Transportation for which they were entitled to prevailing wages. Lee 22 Decl. at ¶ 6. Defendant has an unlawful practice of failing to accurately record Plaintiffs’ work 23 hours on one wage statement per pay period. Lee Decl. at ¶ 7. Instead, Defendant calculated 24 Plaintiffs’ work hours by separating them between regular wage and prevailing wage hours, 25 including overtime hours, on two separate wage statements each pay period, thereby making it extremely difficult for Plaintiffs to track, reconcile, and calculate their wages, prevailing and 26 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 2 1 regular wage hours worked, and correct rate of pay accurately. Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 8, 9. 2 Plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit against Defendant on April 18, 2022 for wage claims and 3 labor code violations arising out of their employment. Lee Decl. at ¶ 10. Amended complaints 4 were filed on May 5, 2022 (First Amended Complaint) and August 16, 2022 (Second Amended 5 Complaint). Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 11-12; Exhibit A. Written discovery for both parties is ongoing. Lee 6 Decl. at ¶ 13. As part of discovery, Plaintiffs requested complete wage records during their 7 employment from Defendant. Lee Decl. at ¶ 14; Exhibit B. To date, Defendant has not produced 8 complete wage records and insists that they have produced all Plaintiffs’ wage records, despite 9 inexplicable missing gaps of Plaintiffs’ wage statements for periods of time. Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 15, 10 16; Exhibit C. Defendant served Plaintiffs with Special Interrogatories, Set One on or around July 27, 11 2022. Lee Decl. at ¶ 19. Plaintiffs served timely code-compliant responses to Defendant on 12 December 12, 13, 19, 2023. Lee Decl. at ¶ 20; Exhibit D. Corresponding verifications followed 13 and were served on January 8, 2024. Lee Decl. at ¶ 21; Exhibit E. On December 21, 2023 14 Defendant’s counsel served a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs. Lee Decl. at ¶ 22. In response, 15 Plaintiffs provided timely amended responses (“First Amended”) on December 29, 2023. Lee 16 Decl. at ¶ 23; Exhibit F. Defendant sent a subsequent meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs on or 17 about January 24, 2024. Lee Decl. at ¶ 24; Exhibit G. On the letter, Defendant alleged that all of 18 Plaintiffs’ First Amended responses were deficient without going into any details whatsoever. Lee 19 Decl. at ¶ 25; Id. The letter was scant on any clear instructions, guidance, or details to Plaintiffs, 20 save for statements alleging that “all” of Plaintiffs’ amended responses were conclusory or lacked 21 any information. Lee Decl. at ¶ 26; Id. Plaintiffs made their best assessment of Defendant’s meet 22 and confer and served timely code compliant amended responses (“Second Amended”) on 23 February 2, 2024 to Defendant. Lee Decl. at ¶ 27; Exhibit H. 24 Without any additional communications from Defendant or attempts to informally address 25 written discovery issues, Defendant prematurely filed this Motion. Lee Decl. at ¶ 28. Plaintiffs were not aware of the alleged SROG issues to their Second Amended responses until this Motion 26 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 3 1 was filed. Lee Decl. at ¶ 29. Plaintiffs’ counsel urged Defendant to continue engaging in the meet 2 and confer process, but Defendant ignored all such efforts. Lee Decl. at ¶ 30; Exhibit I. Plaintiffs 3 served Third Amended responses (“Third Amended”) to Defendant on April 11, 2024. Lee Decl. at 4 ¶ 31; Exhibit J. 5 For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion should be denied and no sanctions should be 6 awarded to Defendant as Plaintiffs’ provided code-compliant interrogatory responses and acted 7 with substantial justification. 8 9 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 10 A. Plaintiffs Fully Complied With Their Duty to Respond to Special Interrogatories 11 Under CCP §2030.210, Plaintiffs have fully complied with their duty to respond to 12 Defendant’s SROGs. A responding party must respond to interrogatories by answering, denying 13 that it has sufficient knowledge to answer, produce documents, or objecting to the interrogatory. 14 In Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s SROGs, Plaintiffs answered all SROGs by either 15 answering with fact statements, informing Defendant that they are unable to fully answer the interrogatory at such time due to having insufficient information, asserting proper objections to 16 preserve their rights, or supplementing answers with associated records/documents with Bates 17 stamp references. In majority of instances, Plaintiffs’ written responses provided a combination of 18 the above. Contrary to Defendant’s beliefs, at no time did Plaintiffs merely provide a response or 19 amended response by simply referencing documents; rather, all cited documents in their answers 20 were included for purposes of supplementing Plaintiffs’ responses to the interrogatories. 21 Plaintiffs’ SROG responses are derived from incomplete wage information and documents 22 produced by Defendant. Plaintiffs made good-faith effort in requesting and acquiring complete 23 wage records from Defendant. However, Defendant has failed to do so. Without such pertinent 24 records, Plaintiffs are prevented from evaluating their wage claims and damages with any precise 25 particularity. As such, Plaintiffs’ SROG responses are complete to the extent possible based on the 26 lack of material information at their disposal. PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 4 1 In total, Plaintiffs’ responses and amended responses are complete and compliant of the 2 Code and law. 3 B. Plaintiffs Complied With California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a) 4 Plaintiffs have fully complied with CCP §2030.300(a). CCP §2030.300(a) provides that a 5 propounding party to interrogatories may move to compel further responses if any of the 6 following: 7 (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; 8 (2) Option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required 9 specification of those documents is inadequate; 10 (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. 11 1. Plaintiffs’ Responses to the Interrogatories are Code Compliant and Complete 12 Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s SROGs are with merit, code compliant and complete. 13 Plaintiffs made good faith efforts to obtain complete wage records from Defendant. However, 14 despite Plaintiffs’ attempts at requesting missing wage statements from Defendant, no additional 15 wage statements have been produced by Defendant, nor have they provided valid explanations as 16 to their absence or whereabouts. [See Exhibit C]. 17 Without complete wage records, Plaintiffs can only answer the interrogatories to the best of 18 their knowledge with the limited information given. The wage statements that were produced by 19 Defendant are insufficient and contain missing gaps of time of employment for Plaintiffs. As a 20 result, Plaintiffs are deprived of reviewing pertinent wage records, evaluating wages owed to them by Defendant, hours worked, and assessing damages with any particularity whatsoever. 21 Defendant’s expectations of Plaintiffs to simply insert inaccurate information of wages or overtime 22 amounts owed and damages for the sake of answering the SROGs are not only false and reckless 23 statements but also imprudent towards Plaintiffs’ credibility. 24 When an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, a respondent to written discovery 25 should be answered to the extent possible. CCP §2030.250; CCP §2030.220(a)(6). This is exactly 26 what Plaintiffs did when answering Defendant’s SROGs. Plaintiffs provided facts that are based PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 5 1 on personal knowledge and incomplete documents produced by Defendant. Ironically, Defendant 2 argues in this Motion that Plaintiffs’ responses are evasive or incomplete even though the nature of 3 the incomplete wage statements originated from Defendant, who now expects Plaintiffs to give 4 fully detailed answers from documents on which Plaintiffs do not possess. Plaintiffs’ responses 5 were answered to the extent possible, and therefore, are code compliant and complete. CCP section 6 2030.300(a)(1). 7 2. Plaintiffs Exercised California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230 Properly 8 Plaintiffs properly exercised CCP §2030.230 as an option to answer Defendant’s SROGs. 9 §2030.230 provides: 10 "If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a 11 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom 12 the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would 13 be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the 14 responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section …." 15 In response to Defendant’s SROGs, this is exactly what Plaintiffs did. As part of Plaintiffs’ 16 responses, reference to documents on which all parties to the lawsuit share were applied in support of fact statements given. Because Plaintiffs had already produced such documents previously on 17 Defendant, it is redundant and time consuming to compile and reproduce the same documents 18 again. As an option, Plaintiffs justifiably opted to provide Bates stamp references to such 19 documents to Defendant in their responses. CCP §2030.300(a)(2). 20 3. Plaintiffs’ Objections Asserted in the Special Interrogatories Responses are Proper and 21 With Merit 22 Defendant wrongly alleges that Plaintiffs’ objections are baseless. As a legal principle, if 23 an objection is not stated in response to written discovery that objection is waived. CCP 24 §2030.290; Scottsdale Ins. Co v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, Cal.App.4th.263. To avoid waiver, 25 Plaintiffs asserted all applicable objections in their SROG responses. Despite Defendant’s 26 argument, on every objection raised by Plaintiffs in response to a SROG, Plaintiffs provided an PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 6 1 answer (or amended answer) in correspondence to the requested interrogatory. Plaintiffs did not 2 ignore answering any SROGs by merely asserting objections. Plaintiffs provided an answer with 3 facts and/or references to supporting produced documents. 4 Plaintiffs’ objections carry merit. It is true that information sought by Defendant was 5 equally available to them and/or to a third party on which Plaintiffs have no control over. It is 6 further true that Defendant’s interrogatories seek information that encroaches on privileged 7 information pertaining to communications between Plaintiffs and their counsel with respect to 8 wage compensation owed by Defendant and associated damages. Such intimate details are 9 reasonably a subject matter of communication between Plaintiffs and counsel. In addition, 10 Defendant further seeks to have Plaintiffs provide calculations regarding damages owed to them, thereby violating attorney work product. Likewise, similar reasoning applies to objections that call 11 for a legal conclusion, namely those interrogatories seeking specific amounts of wage 12 compensation owed and damages. CCP §2030.300(a)(3). 13 Moreover, it is also true that the interrogatories are overbroad as they do not indicate a 14 duration or range of time. For examples1, SROG No. 5 requests “Please set forth the number of 15 hours per week that you are claiming that you were not paid for pre and post trip inspections.” 16 SROG No. 6 asks, “Please set forth the amount of damages you are claiming for Defendant’s 17 failure to pay you for pre and post trip inspections.” Such interrogatories impose an unreasonable 18 burden on Plaintiffs as they are not in possession of complete wage records. Perkins v. Superior 19 Court of Los Angeles (1981) 118 CA3d 761, 764-765) Even if Plaintiffs did have complete wage 20 records, Plaintiffs still do not know how far back or forward in time to answer the interrogatories. 21 Id. As such, Plaintiffs’ objections raised in direct response to Defendant’s SROGs are indeed 22 proper. CCP §2030.300(a)(3). 23 Because Plaintiffs complied with the provisions under the Code, Defendant’s Motion is 24 unjustified and should be denied. 25 1 26 All Defendant’s SROGs to Plaintiffs are the same with a couple of variations between them. As such, the examples herein used generally encompasses all of Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses and objections therein. PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 7 1 C. Defendant Did Not Provide Complete Wage Records for Plaintiffs To Formulate And 2 Assess Damages Accurately 3 Defendant’s SROGs request are not as simple or straightforward as what Defendant 4 purports them to be. Defendant is aware that Plaintiffs do not have complete wage records, as 5 Plaintiffs have made several requests to Defendant with little success. Yet Defendant insists that 6 Plaintiffs should presumably know by memory or by using incomplete wage records the amount of 7 wages owed, amount of damages for failure to pay overtime, prevailing wage overtime hours per 8 week that were unpaid, as well as damages for failing to pay missed meal breaks accurately. 9 Moreover, Defendant utilizes an unlawful practice of giving Plaintiffs two separate wage 10 statements, one for regular wages and another for prevailing wages for each pay period. Each 11 statement, among other items, consists of total hours worked for prevailing wages or regular wages 12 worked, overtime, rate of pay, and reimbursement of business expenses. These documents are 13 essential for Plaintiffs to rely on before answering Defendant’s SROGs with accuracy, especially 14 questions relating, but are not limited to, unpaid wages, hours worked, particular dates, particular 15 job locations, and/or jobs performed (as mentioned in Defendant’s Motion, See Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authority, p. 7, lines 1-7). Without complete records to rely on, 16 Plaintiffs cannot formulate detailed answers in response to Defendant’s interrogatories requests. 17 Plaintiffs’ responses are as complete to the extent possible given their circumstances, and 18 therefore, are code-compliant and complete. CCP §2030.250; CCP § 2030.220(a)(6). 19 20 D. Plaintiffs First Amended Responses Addressed The Issues On Defendant’s Meet And 21 Confer, Dated December 21, 2023 22 Defendant’s discovery issues with Plaintiffs’ original SROG responses were addressed in 23 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Responses or have been discussed above. 24 Contrary to Defendant’s beliefs, Defendant was not left to “speculate” on Plaintiffs’ First 25 Amended responses. Plaintiffs included amended answers to interrogatories that were at issue, 26 refined facts were added, or alternatively, a code compliant response explaining why Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 8 1 were unable to answer the request at such time were included, i.e., "Plaintiff has not received all 2 relevant informational documents to fully respond to this interrogatory, and that Discovery is 3 ongoing.” CCP §2030.210. 4 Defendant argues that there is no legal requirement compelling one party in a civil 5 discovery matter to simply figure out the other party’s claims and facts supporting the claims. 6 Conversely, the same is true that Plaintiffs cannot provide Defendant with answers that they do not 7 have due to material documents that are not in their possession or produced to them by Defendant. 8 Defendant further assumes incorrectly that Plaintiffs’ objections asserted in their 9 responses have been waived due to Plaintiff’s delayed verifications served on Defendant on 10 January 8, 2024. In Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, the court stated that “if a response is within the statutory time period, that portion of the responses must be considered 11 timely notwithstanding the lack of verification … but does not result in a waiver of the 12 objections made….” Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App. 4th 651, 13 657-658). Applying the principles of Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc., Plaintiffs served their 14 written original responses to Defendant, including First and Second Amended responses 15 timely in accordance with statutory requirements and agreement with Defendant. This fact is 16 not disputed by Defendant. More importantly, although Plaintiffs’ verifications were delayed 17 briefly, Plaintiffs’ responses are deemed timely, and that all objections asserted in the SROGs 18 have not been waived. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs’ objections are properly preserved. 19 20 E. Defendant’s Meet and Confer, Dated January 24, 2024 Was Severely Lacking 21 And Deficient 22 Defendant’s meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel, dated January 24, 2024, was non- 23 instructive, vague and merely accusatory. The letter did not convey any guidance to Plaintiffs 24 whatsoever but instead broadly claimed that Plaintiffs’ First Amended responses were entirely 25 deficient, without explaining which SROGs in particular are at issue and how it may be remedied by Plaintiffs. 26 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 9 1 Plaintiffs made a good-faith effort in interpreting Defendant’s insufficient meet and confer 2 letter. In response, Plaintiffs provided Second Amended responses with additional facts and Bates 3 stamp references to documents supporting their answers to corresponding SROGs. In totality, 4 Plaintiffs’ responses (original, First Amended and Second Amended responses) are code 5 compliant, and the answers provided are in direct response to the requested SROGs. As such, 6 Defendant’s claim that Plaintiffs’ responses are deficient is misleading. 7 Defendant also purports that Plaintiffs’ reliance on CCP §2030.230 is misplaced. 8 Defendant is wrong: 9 First, Plaintiffs did not waive their rights to assert CCP §2030.230 as part of their SROG 10 responses. Pursuant to Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, Plaintiffs’ responses are timely. This includes Plaintiffs’ original responses, First Amended responses, and Second 11 Amended responses. Id. 12 Second, Plaintiffs’ objections asserted in their SROG responses are preserved pursuant to 13 Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. v. Superior Court, as discussed herein. Id. 14 Third, Defendant attempts to add an additional requirement to the statute for purposes of 15 bolstering an unsupported argument. Defendant insinuates that Plaintiffs are disqualified from 16 applying §2030.230 as a responsive answer because Defendant did not request for such a format. 17 However, nowhere in the statute provides such a requirement is necessary. 18 Fourth, Plaintiffs provided code compliant and complete responses. Defendant’s arguments 19 are grounded on the false assumption that they have produced all relevant wage records and 20 documents to Plaintiffs. However, Defendant’s assumption is incorrect. For the same reasons 21 discussed herein, Plaintiffs answered each interrogatory in good faith and to the best of their 22 knowledge based on the information that was readily available to them. 23 Lastly, Defendant wrongly asserts that Plaintiffs’ responses were merely citing 24 compilations of documents. Each of Plaintiffs’ responses and amended responses to Defendant’s 25 SROGs contain proper code compliant fact statements, objections in part, as well as references to supplemental and supporting produced documents. The referenced citations were provided in 26 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 10 1 conjunction with fact statements. 2 For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ reliance on exercising CCP §2030.230 is justified and 3 proper. 4 F. Defendant’s Failed To Satisfy Their Meet and Confer Obligation To Resolve the 5 Discovery Issues Informally 6 CCP section 2030.300 provides that a party seeking to compel is required to have made a 7 “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution” regarding the discovery dispute. 8 CCP §2016.040. Moreover, “a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution requires 9 that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” 10 Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 CA 4th 1431-1439. Defendant failed on both accounts. Defendant’s meet and confer letter, dated January 24, 2024 did not provide detailed or 11 adequate instructions. The letter offered little to no instructions or explanations as to how 12 Plaintiffs’ First Amended written responses were deficient. Instead, Defendant made broad and 13 sweeping statements that all of Plaintiffs’ First Amended responses were improper. When 14 Plaintiffs served their Second Amended written responses, Defendant deemed it the same without 15 any additional communications to Plaintiffs to remedy. Plaintiffs’ counsel was amicable and 16 willing to resolve the discovery issues with Defendant. However, Defendant’s counsel refused to 17 further engage and proceed with the meet and confer process. Rather than trying to reach an 18 informal discovery resolution, Defendant unreasonably closed this option and filed this Motion. 19 Plaintiffs’ counsel urged Defendant to continue discussing about the discovery issues informally, 20 but Defendant refused to do so. In good-faith, Plaintiffs served Third Amended responses (“Third 21 Amended”) to Defendant on April 11, 2024. 22 As such, Defendant failed to meet the requirements under the Code, and therefore, the 23 Motion should be denied. 24 G. Sanctions Are Not Warranted Because Plaintiffs Acted with Substantial Justification 25 Plaintiffs did not engage in the misuse of the discovery process to warrant sanctions. 26 Plaintiffs made a good faith effort to comply with Defendant’s SROG requests and correcting PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 11 1 alleged discovery deficiencies. Plaintiffs’ written responses, including First and Second Amended 2 responses, answered the interrogatories to their best ability based on their knowledge and to the 3 extent of the limited wage records produced to them. Contrary to Defendant’s beliefs, Defendant 4 produced incomplete wage records to Plaintiffs which denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to 5 accurately assess the amount of wages owed to them by Defendant for prevailing wages and 6 regular wages, overtime and damages in its entirety. Thus, Plaintiffs acted with substantial 7 justification in their discovery efforts. See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Frye) (2022) 8 84 CA5th 127, 139, 300 CR3d 225, 23. 9 Therefore, Plaintiffs did not engage in misuse of the discovery process and should not be 10 sanctioned. In addition, Defendant should not be awarded any attorneys’ fees and costs for filing this Motion. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully requests an Order denying Defendant’s 13 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and For Monetary Sanctions and 14 denying Defendant of attorneys’ fees and costs for filing this Motion. 15 16 Dated: April 11, 2024 KLETTER LAW 17 18 Warren Lee By:____________________________ 19 Cary Kletter Rachel Hallam 20 Warren Lee Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 12