Preview
1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798)
2 DEANNA S. LEIFER (SBN 265840)
OLIVIA GREEN (SBN 334128)
3 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
4 Tel: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA GAETA
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
9
10 SANDRA GAETA, an individual, CASE NO.: BCV-21-101362
11 [Assigned for all purposes to the
Plaintiff, Honorable Thomas S. Clark, Dept. 17]
12
vs. PLAINTIFF SANDRA GAETA’S NOTICE
13 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
JBBC, INC. D/B/A THE BROKEN YOLK DEFENDANT JBBC, INC. TO PROVIDE
14 CAFÉ, a California corporation; ABRAHAM FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
AYALA, an individual; and DOES 1 through SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
15 50, inclusive,
[Filed concurrently with Separate Statement in
16 Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses
Defendants. to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories; Declaration
17 of Olivia Green; and [Proposed] Order]
18 Date: March 8, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
19 Dept.: 17
20
Action Filed: June 15, 2021
21 Trial Date: September 26, 2022
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on March 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter may be heard, in Department 17 of the Superior Court of California for the County of Kern,
4 located at 1415 Truxton Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301, Plaintiff Sandra Gaeta
5 (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order compelling Defendant JBBC, Inc.
6 (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 (Set
7 One).
8 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 on the grounds that
9 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 are evasive and therefore
10 incomplete. Furthermore, Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are without
11 merit and do not justify its refusal to provide full and complete responses.
12 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and
13 Authorities, the accompanying Declaration of Olivia Green and the supporting exhibits thereto, the
14 complete files and records of this case, and such oral argument and evidence as may be presented
15 at the hearing on the motion.
16
17 DATED: February 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
18
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
19
20
By:
21 MATTHEW J. MATERN
DEANNA S. LEIFER
22 OLIVIA GREEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA GAETA
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff Sandra Gaeta (“Plaintiff”) seeks to compel Defendant JBBC, Inc. (“Defendant”)
4 (Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively referred to as the “Parties”) to provide further responses to
5 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 (Set One).
6 Special Interrogatories Nos. 27 and 28 ask Defendant to describe in detail all complaints of
7 alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by any employee of Defendant, other than
8 Plaintiff, at any of Defendant’s locations in California from January 1, 2018 to the present. Special
9 Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 30 ask Defendant to describe in detail any investigations that Defendant
10 conducted regarding any complaints of alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
11 made by any employee of Defendant, other than Plaintiff, at any of Defendant’s locations in
12 California from January 1, 2018 to the present. Special interrogatories Nos. 31 and 32 ask
13 Defendant to identify every individual who complained to Defendant about sexual harassment,
14 discrimination, and retaliation, other than Plaintiff, at any of Defendant’s locations in California
15 from January 1, 2018 to the present.
16 Defendant improperly limits its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 28, 31, and 32
17 to the date that Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant alleging sexual harassment, and in response to
18 Special Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 30, Defendant states that, since there were no complaints prior
19 to Plaintiff’s email alleging sexual harassment, there were no investigations. These responses are
20 inappropriate and evasive.
21 Defendant apparently relies on the objection that these interrogatories seek information that
22 is overbroad and irrelevant. Defendant contends that any allegations of misconduct that occurred
23 after Plaintiff resigned are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s case and not likely to lead to the discovery of
24 admissible evidence. However, Defendant’s objections are without merit, as Plaintiff is entitled to
25 this information from the date her employment with Defendant commenced through the present
26 date. Nonetheless, even though Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant began in August 2016,
27 Plaintiff has already agreed to limit these requests to the time period from January 1, 2018 to the
28 present. Plaintiff has also agreed to limit Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 29, and 31 to complaints
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 of sex discrimination, not all discrimination. Despite these limitations, Defendant has still failed to
2 provide complete responses. Given that Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are clear and precise,
3 relevant, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Defendant’s
4 remaining objections are baseless and do not provide a proper basis for Defendant to continue to
5 withhold responsive information.
6 Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to provide further responses
7 to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32.
8 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9 On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant for violations of
10 California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Declaration of Olivia Green (“Green Decl.”) ¶ 4.
11 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, failure to
12 take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination, retaliation, intentional
13 infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention, constructive
14 discharge, and sexual battery. Id. On August 17, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s
15 Complaint. Id. at ¶ 5.
16 On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff served her first set of written discovery requests,
17 including Special Interrogatories (Set One), on Defendant. Id. at ¶ 6. On November 5, 2021,
18 Defendant served responses and objections to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests. Id. On
19 December 3, 2021, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in
20 Defendant’s discovery responses, including the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s
21 Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32. Id. at ¶ 7. The Parties subsequently met and conferred via
22 email, wherein counsel for Defendant stated that “Defendant stands by its objection that [Special
23 Interrogatories Nos. 27-32] seek information that is overbroad and irrelevant. Any allegations of
24 misconduct that occurred after Plaintiff resigned are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s case and not likely to
25 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Defendant is willing to respond to these
26 interrogatories on a limited time frame of January 1, 2018 to March 30, 2021.” Id.. at ¶ 8, Exh. A.
27 On December 22, 2021, the Parties met and conferred telephonically regarding
28 Defendant’s discovery responses. Id. at ¶ 9. On December 23, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff sent
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 counsel for Defendant a follow-up email, which stated that, although Defendant indicated that it
2 may not supplement its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32, Plaintiff’s position is that
3 Plaintiff is “entitled to this information as it is evidence of whether Defendant changed any of its
4 policies or practices,” and that Plaintiff will move to compel further responses on these
5 interrogatories if Defendant chooses not to supplement them. Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. B.
6 On January 13, 2022, Defendant served supplemental responses to one of Plaintiff’s
7 Special Interrogatories, but failed to supplement its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-
8 32. Id. at ¶ 11, Exh. C.
9 On January 21, 2022, the Parties again met and conferred and counsel for Plaintiff notified
10 counsel for Defendant that Plaintiff intended to move to compel further discovery responses. Id.
11 at ¶ 12, Exh. D. After counsel for Defendant requested clarification regarding which discovery
12 responses were still at issue “[t]o help with any further meet and confer,” counsel for Plaintiff
13 clarified that Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32, among other responses,
14 were still at issue. Id.
15 On February 1, 2022, counsel for Defendant confirmed that “Defendant’s position has not
16 changed regarding supplementation.” Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. E. Given that the Parties have met and
17 conferred multiple times regarding Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32, but have not reached an
18 agreement, Plaintiff proceeded with filing the instant motion to compel. Id. at ¶ 14.
19 III. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21 A. Plaintiff is Entitled to the Information Sought in Special Interrogatories Nos.
22 27-32
23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a)(1) and (3), “[o]n receipt of a response
24 to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if
25 the propounding party deems that...[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or
26 incomplete...[or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” Code Civ.
27 Proc. § 2030.300(a)(1) and (3).
28
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 Defendant’s attempt to limit its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 to the date
2 on which Plaintiff sent an email alleging sexual harassment is completely arbitrary and
3 intentionally evasive, and Defendant’s objections do not provide a proper basis for Defendant’s
4 refusal to provide complete substantive responses from January 1, 2018 to the present. The right
5 to discovery is broad, and “[d]oubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s
6 preparation for trial should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]” Union
7 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 9–11. A party may obtain
8 discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved.
9 Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. Any information that “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating
10 the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement” falls within the definition of permissible
11 discovery. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611. Further, discovery rules
12 are applied liberally in favor of discovery, and all doubts about discovery are resolved in favor of
13 disclosure. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.
14 Here, the information sought through Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 is highly relevant.
15 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and omissions, Plaintiff
16 was sexually harassed, discriminated against on the basis of her sex, and retaliated against, among
17 other things. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to prevent such sexual harassment,
18 discrimination, and retaliation, and Defendant was negligent in the hiring, retention, and
19 supervision of its employee, defendant Abraham Ayala, who sexually harassed Plaintiff. Thus, the
20 interrogatories at issue, which seek information related to other complaints of sexual harassment,
21 sex discrimination, and retaliation, as well as Defendant’s investigations of such complaints, are
22 directly related to whether Defendant changed any of its policies or practices related to sexual
23 harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.
24 Complete responses to these interrogatories will also evidence whether Defendant received
25 any other complaints of sexual harassment against the same sexual harasser, which is directly
26 related to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was negligent in its hiring, supervision, and retention of
27 defendant Ayala. “Me too” evidence, even if itoccurred outside the plaintiff’s presence and at
28 time other than when plaintiff was employed, is relevant and discoverable. Pantoja v. Anton
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 92. Moreover, Plaintiff has alleged that she was subjected to a hostile
2 work environment during her employment with Defendant, and that Defendant failed to prevent or
3 correct the sexual harassment. Evidence of other complaints of sexual harassment by Defendant’s
4 employees are directly relevant to these allegations. Plaintiff could reasonably request this
5 information from the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment in August 2016 to the present.
6 Nonetheless, Plaintiff limited this request to the time period of January 1, 2018 to the present. As
7 such, Defendant must provide a complete response.
8 Furthermore, the “me-too” evidence requested in Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 is
9 relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Courts have
10 consistently have held that evidence of discrimination against other employees is admissible to
11 show intent or motive, “for the purpose of casting doubt on an employer's stated reason for an
12 adverse employment action, and thereby creating a triable issue of material fact a as to whether the
13 stated reason was merely a pretext and the actual reason was wrongful under employment law.”
14 See Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura
15 Counties (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 740, 760. See also Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65
16 Cal.App.4th 511; Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 109-110 (“me-too” evidence of
17 harassment by a Defendant against third parties is admissible to show discriminatory intent or
18 bias). As such, Plaintiff is entitled to such information through the present date, and Defendant’s
19 objection that these interrogatories are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
20 discovery of admissible evidence is meritless and does not justify its failure to provide this
21 information.
22 B. Defendant’s Objections Are Baseless and Do Not Support its Refusal to
23 Provide Complete Responses
24 The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond to interrogatories remains at
25 all times with the party resisting the interrogatory. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210,
26 220-2. Defendant’s remaining objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories are all baseless. Defendant
27 objects that each of the interrogatories at issue is vague and ambiguous. However, Defendant has
28 failed to explain how the interrogatories are either vague or ambiguous in any respect. See Code
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 Civ. Proc. 2031.240(b)(2). Indeed, the interrogatories were not so vague and ambiguous to
2 preclude Defendant from providing responses for the more limited time period. Further, such
3 objections are generally disfavored and are not upheld unless the request is entirely
4 unintelligible, which Plaintiff’s interrogatories are clearly not. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.
5 App. 3d 771, 783. Even where a request is ambiguous, if “the nature of the information sought is
6 apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” Id.
7 Defendant’s objections based on privilege are similarly baseless. The attorney-client
8 privilege applies only where the communication between attorney and client is confidential and
9 made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Super. Ct., 47 Cal.
10 4th 725, 732-33 (2009); see also Cal. Evid. Code § 954 et seq. Such privileged communications
11 are not implicated by Plaintiff’s discovery requests. As to work product, the protection only
12 applies when the disclosure would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the
13 case or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or
14 efforts. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 486. Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32
15 do not seek any information related to any communications between anyone and their attorney,
16 nor do they seek any attorney tactics, impressions, or evaluations. Rather, they seek information
17 related to complaints made by Defendant’s employees to Defendant. Again, there did not seem to
18 be any attorney-client privilege implicated in Defendant’s responses for the more limited time
19 period.
20 Likewise, Defendant’s purported privacy and confidentiality objections are meritless. The
21 right of privacy only “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious
22 invasion.” Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Cal.App.4th 360, 370.
23 Additionally, as stated above, “me too” evidence, even if it occurred outside the plaintiff’s
24 presence and at time other than when plaintiff was employed, is relevant and discoverable.
25 Pantoja, 198 Cal.App.4th at 92. Moreover, any privacy or confidentiality concerns can be easily
26 remedied through the use of a protective order, which Plaintiff is willing to immediately enter into.
27 Lastly, Defendant’s objections that these interrogatories call for a legal conclusion are
28 entirely unpersuasive. Even if the interrogatories called for a legal conclusion, that would not
-8-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 absolve Defendant of the requirement to provide complete responses. See Rifkind v. Superior
2 Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1263 (even though legal contention questions are not proper
3 during depositions of a represented party, they are “entirely appropriate” for written discovery).
4 More importantly, the interrogatories simply do not call for a legal conclusion. They ask whether
5 other employees of Defendant complained that they experienced sexual harassment, sex
6 discrimination, or retaliation, who made such complaints, and whether Defendant investigated any
7 such complaints, during the relevant time period. Responding to these interrogatories does not
8 require a legal conclusion. These are factual inquiries. And, as mentioned above, this objection
9 did not render Defendant unable to respond to the interrogatories for the time period of January 1,
10 2018 to March 30, 2021. Thus, there is no reason why it should prevent Defendant from
11 providing a response up until the present.
12 As such, Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete, and its boilerplate objections
13 are without merit and do not justify its failure to provide complete responses.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this
16 motion in its entirety and issue an order compelling Defendant to serve further responses to
17 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 (Set One).
18
19 DATED: February 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
20
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
21
22
23 By:
MATTHEW J. MATERN
24 DEANNA S. LEIFER
OLIVIA GREEN
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA GAETA
26
27
28
-9-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Preview
1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) 2 DEANNA S. LEIFER (SBN 265840) OLIVIA GREEN (SBN 334128) 3 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 4 Tel: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA GAETA 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 9 10 SANDRA GAETA, an individual, CASE NO.: BCV-21-101362 11 [Assigned for all purposes to the Plaintiff, Honorable Thomas S. Clark, Dept. 17] 12 vs. PLAINTIFF SANDRA GAETA’S NOTICE 13 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL JBBC, INC. D/B/A THE BROKEN YOLK DEFENDANT JBBC, INC. TO PROVIDE 14 CAFÉ, a California corporation; ABRAHAM FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AYALA, an individual; and DOES 1 through SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 15 50, inclusive, [Filed concurrently with Separate Statement in 16 Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses Defendants. to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories; Declaration 17 of Olivia Green; and [Proposed] Order] 18 Date: March 8, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Dept.: 17 20 Action Filed: June 15, 2021 21 Trial Date: September 26, 2022 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on March 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.., or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard, in Department 17 of the Superior Court of California for the County of Kern, 4 located at 1415 Truxton Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301, Plaintiff Sandra Gaeta 5 (“Plaintiff”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order compelling Defendant JBBC, Inc. 6 (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 (Set 7 One). 8 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 on the grounds that 9 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 are evasive and therefore 10 incomplete. Furthermore, Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are without 11 merit and do not justify its refusal to provide full and complete responses. 12 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and 13 Authorities, the accompanying Declaration of Olivia Green and the supporting exhibits thereto, the 14 complete files and records of this case, and such oral argument and evidence as may be presented 15 at the hearing on the motion. 16 17 DATED: February 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 18 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 19 20 By: 21 MATTHEW J. MATERN DEANNA S. LEIFER 22 OLIVIA GREEN Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA GAETA 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff Sandra Gaeta (“Plaintiff”) seeks to compel Defendant JBBC, Inc. (“Defendant”) 4 (Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively referred to as the “Parties”) to provide further responses to 5 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 (Set One). 6 Special Interrogatories Nos. 27 and 28 ask Defendant to describe in detail all complaints of 7 alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by any employee of Defendant, other than 8 Plaintiff, at any of Defendant’s locations in California from January 1, 2018 to the present. Special 9 Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 30 ask Defendant to describe in detail any investigations that Defendant 10 conducted regarding any complaints of alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation 11 made by any employee of Defendant, other than Plaintiff, at any of Defendant’s locations in 12 California from January 1, 2018 to the present. Special interrogatories Nos. 31 and 32 ask 13 Defendant to identify every individual who complained to Defendant about sexual harassment, 14 discrimination, and retaliation, other than Plaintiff, at any of Defendant’s locations in California 15 from January 1, 2018 to the present. 16 Defendant improperly limits its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 28, 31, and 32 17 to the date that Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant alleging sexual harassment, and in response to 18 Special Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 30, Defendant states that, since there were no complaints prior 19 to Plaintiff’s email alleging sexual harassment, there were no investigations. These responses are 20 inappropriate and evasive. 21 Defendant apparently relies on the objection that these interrogatories seek information that 22 is overbroad and irrelevant. Defendant contends that any allegations of misconduct that occurred 23 after Plaintiff resigned are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s case and not likely to lead to the discovery of 24 admissible evidence. However, Defendant’s objections are without merit, as Plaintiff is entitled to 25 this information from the date her employment with Defendant commenced through the present 26 date. Nonetheless, even though Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant began in August 2016, 27 Plaintiff has already agreed to limit these requests to the time period from January 1, 2018 to the 28 present. Plaintiff has also agreed to limit Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 29, and 31 to complaints -3- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 of sex discrimination, not all discrimination. Despite these limitations, Defendant has still failed to 2 provide complete responses. Given that Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are clear and precise, 3 relevant, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Defendant’s 4 remaining objections are baseless and do not provide a proper basis for Defendant to continue to 5 withhold responsive information. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendant to provide further responses 7 to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32. 8 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9 On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant for violations of 10 California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Declaration of Olivia Green (“Green Decl.”) ¶ 4. 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, failure to 12 take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination, retaliation, intentional 13 infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, supervision, and/or retention, constructive 14 discharge, and sexual battery. Id. On August 17, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s 15 Complaint. Id. at ¶ 5. 16 On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff served her first set of written discovery requests, 17 including Special Interrogatories (Set One), on Defendant. Id. at ¶ 6. On November 5, 2021, 18 Defendant served responses and objections to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests. Id. On 19 December 3, 2021, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in 20 Defendant’s discovery responses, including the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s 21 Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32. Id. at ¶ 7. The Parties subsequently met and conferred via 22 email, wherein counsel for Defendant stated that “Defendant stands by its objection that [Special 23 Interrogatories Nos. 27-32] seek information that is overbroad and irrelevant. Any allegations of 24 misconduct that occurred after Plaintiff resigned are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s case and not likely to 25 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Defendant is willing to respond to these 26 interrogatories on a limited time frame of January 1, 2018 to March 30, 2021.” Id.. at ¶ 8, Exh. A. 27 On December 22, 2021, the Parties met and conferred telephonically regarding 28 Defendant’s discovery responses. Id. at ¶ 9. On December 23, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff sent -4- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 counsel for Defendant a follow-up email, which stated that, although Defendant indicated that it 2 may not supplement its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32, Plaintiff’s position is that 3 Plaintiff is “entitled to this information as it is evidence of whether Defendant changed any of its 4 policies or practices,” and that Plaintiff will move to compel further responses on these 5 interrogatories if Defendant chooses not to supplement them. Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. B. 6 On January 13, 2022, Defendant served supplemental responses to one of Plaintiff’s 7 Special Interrogatories, but failed to supplement its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27- 8 32. Id. at ¶ 11, Exh. C. 9 On January 21, 2022, the Parties again met and conferred and counsel for Plaintiff notified 10 counsel for Defendant that Plaintiff intended to move to compel further discovery responses. Id. 11 at ¶ 12, Exh. D. After counsel for Defendant requested clarification regarding which discovery 12 responses were still at issue “[t]o help with any further meet and confer,” counsel for Plaintiff 13 clarified that Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32, among other responses, 14 were still at issue. Id. 15 On February 1, 2022, counsel for Defendant confirmed that “Defendant’s position has not 16 changed regarding supplementation.” Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. E. Given that the Parties have met and 17 conferred multiple times regarding Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32, but have not reached an 18 agreement, Plaintiff proceeded with filing the instant motion to compel. Id. at ¶ 14. 19 III. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21 A. Plaintiff is Entitled to the Information Sought in Special Interrogatories Nos. 22 27-32 23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a)(1) and (3), “[o]n receipt of a response 24 to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if 25 the propounding party deems that...[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or 26 incomplete...[or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” Code Civ. 27 Proc. § 2030.300(a)(1) and (3). 28 -5- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 Defendant’s attempt to limit its responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 to the date 2 on which Plaintiff sent an email alleging sexual harassment is completely arbitrary and 3 intentionally evasive, and Defendant’s objections do not provide a proper basis for Defendant’s 4 refusal to provide complete substantive responses from January 1, 2018 to the present. The right 5 to discovery is broad, and “[d]oubts as to whether particular matters will aid in a party’s 6 preparation for trial should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery[.]” Union 7 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 9–11. A party may obtain 8 discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved. 9 Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. Any information that “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating 10 the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement” falls within the definition of permissible 11 discovery. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611. Further, discovery rules 12 are applied liberally in favor of discovery, and all doubts about discovery are resolved in favor of 13 disclosure. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119. 14 Here, the information sought through Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 is highly relevant. 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and omissions, Plaintiff 16 was sexually harassed, discriminated against on the basis of her sex, and retaliated against, among 17 other things. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to prevent such sexual harassment, 18 discrimination, and retaliation, and Defendant was negligent in the hiring, retention, and 19 supervision of its employee, defendant Abraham Ayala, who sexually harassed Plaintiff. Thus, the 20 interrogatories at issue, which seek information related to other complaints of sexual harassment, 21 sex discrimination, and retaliation, as well as Defendant’s investigations of such complaints, are 22 directly related to whether Defendant changed any of its policies or practices related to sexual 23 harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. 24 Complete responses to these interrogatories will also evidence whether Defendant received 25 any other complaints of sexual harassment against the same sexual harasser, which is directly 26 related to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was negligent in its hiring, supervision, and retention of 27 defendant Ayala. “Me too” evidence, even if itoccurred outside the plaintiff’s presence and at 28 time other than when plaintiff was employed, is relevant and discoverable. Pantoja v. Anton -6- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 92. Moreover, Plaintiff has alleged that she was subjected to a hostile 2 work environment during her employment with Defendant, and that Defendant failed to prevent or 3 correct the sexual harassment. Evidence of other complaints of sexual harassment by Defendant’s 4 employees are directly relevant to these allegations. Plaintiff could reasonably request this 5 information from the beginning of Plaintiff’s employment in August 2016 to the present. 6 Nonetheless, Plaintiff limited this request to the time period of January 1, 2018 to the present. As 7 such, Defendant must provide a complete response. 8 Furthermore, the “me-too” evidence requested in Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 is 9 relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Courts have 10 consistently have held that evidence of discrimination against other employees is admissible to 11 show intent or motive, “for the purpose of casting doubt on an employer's stated reason for an 12 adverse employment action, and thereby creating a triable issue of material fact a as to whether the 13 stated reason was merely a pretext and the actual reason was wrongful under employment law.” 14 See Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura 15 Counties (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 740, 760. See also Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 16 Cal.App.4th 511; Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 109-110 (“me-too” evidence of 17 harassment by a Defendant against third parties is admissible to show discriminatory intent or 18 bias). As such, Plaintiff is entitled to such information through the present date, and Defendant’s 19 objection that these interrogatories are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 20 discovery of admissible evidence is meritless and does not justify its failure to provide this 21 information. 22 B. Defendant’s Objections Are Baseless and Do Not Support its Refusal to 23 Provide Complete Responses 24 The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond to interrogatories remains at 25 all times with the party resisting the interrogatory. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 26 220-2. Defendant’s remaining objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories are all baseless. Defendant 27 objects that each of the interrogatories at issue is vague and ambiguous. However, Defendant has 28 failed to explain how the interrogatories are either vague or ambiguous in any respect. See Code -7- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 Civ. Proc. 2031.240(b)(2). Indeed, the interrogatories were not so vague and ambiguous to 2 preclude Defendant from providing responses for the more limited time period. Further, such 3 objections are generally disfavored and are not upheld unless the request is entirely 4 unintelligible, which Plaintiff’s interrogatories are clearly not. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 5 App. 3d 771, 783. Even where a request is ambiguous, if “the nature of the information sought is 6 apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” Id. 7 Defendant’s objections based on privilege are similarly baseless. The attorney-client 8 privilege applies only where the communication between attorney and client is confidential and 9 made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Super. Ct., 47 Cal. 10 4th 725, 732-33 (2009); see also Cal. Evid. Code § 954 et seq. Such privileged communications 11 are not implicated by Plaintiff’s discovery requests. As to work product, the protection only 12 applies when the disclosure would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the 13 case or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or 14 efforts. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 486. Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-32 15 do not seek any information related to any communications between anyone and their attorney, 16 nor do they seek any attorney tactics, impressions, or evaluations. Rather, they seek information 17 related to complaints made by Defendant’s employees to Defendant. Again, there did not seem to 18 be any attorney-client privilege implicated in Defendant’s responses for the more limited time 19 period. 20 Likewise, Defendant’s purported privacy and confidentiality objections are meritless. The 21 right of privacy only “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious 22 invasion.” Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Cal.App.4th 360, 370. 23 Additionally, as stated above, “me too” evidence, even if it occurred outside the plaintiff’s 24 presence and at time other than when plaintiff was employed, is relevant and discoverable. 25 Pantoja, 198 Cal.App.4th at 92. Moreover, any privacy or confidentiality concerns can be easily 26 remedied through the use of a protective order, which Plaintiff is willing to immediately enter into. 27 Lastly, Defendant’s objections that these interrogatories call for a legal conclusion are 28 entirely unpersuasive. Even if the interrogatories called for a legal conclusion, that would not -8- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 absolve Defendant of the requirement to provide complete responses. See Rifkind v. Superior 2 Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1263 (even though legal contention questions are not proper 3 during depositions of a represented party, they are “entirely appropriate” for written discovery). 4 More importantly, the interrogatories simply do not call for a legal conclusion. They ask whether 5 other employees of Defendant complained that they experienced sexual harassment, sex 6 discrimination, or retaliation, who made such complaints, and whether Defendant investigated any 7 such complaints, during the relevant time period. Responding to these interrogatories does not 8 require a legal conclusion. These are factual inquiries. And, as mentioned above, this objection 9 did not render Defendant unable to respond to the interrogatories for the time period of January 1, 10 2018 to March 30, 2021. Thus, there is no reason why it should prevent Defendant from 11 providing a response up until the present. 12 As such, Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete, and its boilerplate objections 13 are without merit and do not justify its failure to provide complete responses. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this 16 motion in its entirety and issue an order compelling Defendant to serve further responses to 17 Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 (Set One). 18 19 DATED: February 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 20 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 21 22 23 By: MATTHEW J. MATERN 24 DEANNA S. LEIFER OLIVIA GREEN 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff SANDRA GAETA 26 27 28 -9- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES