Maria Azari vs Covenant Living West Inc

Case Number

22CV01556

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/16/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two), is denied. No sanctions shall be awarded against or in favor of either party.

Background:

This action was commenced on April 22, 2022, by plaintiff Maria Azari (“plaintiff”) against her former employer Covenant Living West, Inc. (“defendant”)

The complaint asserts seven causes of action as follows: (1) Failure to provide meal and rest periods. (2) Failure to pay overtime wages. (3) Failure to pay final wages. (4) Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. (5) Failure to pay wages when due. (6) Unfair Business Practices. (7) Unlawful retaliation.

As alleged in the complaint: In April 2017, plaintiff was hired by defendant as a certified nurse’s assistant (“CNA”). (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff was to be compensated for her work at the rate of $17.12 per hour. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Throughout her employment with defendant, plaintiff was never reprimanded or counseled, nor did she receive any negative performance reviews. (Complaint, ¶ 11.) For approximately six to eight months, plaintiff was not paid overtime wages when she worked in excess of eight hours per day, nor was she permitted to take meal breaks or rest breaks. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Defendant was aware that plaintiff was working unpaid overtime hours and unable to take meal or rest breaks. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) For approximately six to eight months, plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime. (Complaint, ¶ 14.)

On May 16, 2021, plaintiff and four of her co-workers told defendant’s administrator that it was unfair to assign 120 patients to only five CNA’s since it did not enable them to provide the necessary standard of care to the patients without having to forego meal and rest breaks and work overtime hours. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff also informed the administrator that she and the others were not receiving their meal and rest breaks or being paid for the overtime that they were working. (Ibid.) The administrator “brushed them off laughingly telling them they would have a ‘pizza party’ and ordered them to get back to work.” (Ibid.)

Defendant failed to keep accurate daily records of plaintiff’s work hours and meal breaks and failed to maintain such records for at least three years. (Complaint, ¶ 17.) Defendant failed to provide employees with wage payments in writing setting forth the total hours of work, the payment of wages for rest and meal breaks not taken, and the gross and net wages paid. (Ibid.) On May 16, 2021, plaintiff informed the supervising nurse that due to being short staffed the CNA’s and LVN’s were splitting checking the vital signs of residents, but the supervising nurse ignored the issue. (Complaint, ¶¶ 19, 20.) Plaintiff and the head nurse had a dispute regarding being short staffed and plaintiff was told to leave. (Complaint, ¶¶ 20-22.)

On May 17, 2021, plaintiff was not called into work so she called human resources asking if she could come into work that day. Plaintiff was accused of abandoning her job the previous day. (Complaint, ¶ 23.) Plaintiff explained that she had been told to leave and Michelle Hunter from human resources indicated that she would call plaintiff back after an investigation. (Complaint, ¶¶ 24, 25.) Ten days later, plaintiff received a letter stating that plaintiff had been terminated on March 12, 2021. (Complaint, ¶ 25.)

On July 25, 2022, defendant served plaintiff with discovery including special interrogatories, set one. The special interrogatories essentially asked plaintiff to provide information that either supported or refuted her contentions.

Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 3 through 51 and 54 through 58 on June 23, 2023. On June 23, 2023, defendant’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. The words “or refute” were removed from the special interrogatories.

Thereafter, on June 30, 2023, defendant served plaintiff with special interrogatories, set two. (Chan Dec., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.) On August 2, 2023, plaintiff served her verified responses. (Chan Dec., ¶ 3 & Exh. 2.)

Defendant now moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, and requests sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and seeks sanctions in the amount of $4,000.00.

Analysis:

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

The interrogatories in dispute are contention interrogatories and seek information regarding facts, persons, and documents that refute, allegations in plaintiff’s complaint. They include, for example:

“State all facts that refute your contention that you were a non-exempt employee of Defendant Covenant Living West (“Defendant”) within the meaning of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage orders, and/or any other statute/regulation, as alleged by you in the COMPLAINT.” (SI No. 59.)

Plaintiff responded to each of the special interrogatories with:

“OBJECTION. The information is equally or more available to Defendants, since the information sought must be obtained from independent witnesses, in addition to the fact that the demand seeks Plaintiff’s aid in preparing Defendants’ defenses. (See Holguin v. Sup Ct. (1972) 22 CA3d 812, 821, citing Court Lindgren v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.2d 743, 747-748; Ryan v. Superior Court, 186 Cal.App.2d 813, 819 “ ‘They seem to take the position that the propounding of the interrogatories created a duty in [responding party] to start an investigation with the various persons in the coroner’s office who participated in the autopsy and then to answer in accordance with the information thus gathered, even if the facts learned were antagonistic to their trial posture. We know of no principle of discovery law which thus compels a party not only to prepare his opponent’s case, but also to stipulate away his own.’ ”) Furthermore, the Court, when ruling on Defendants’ prior Motion to Compel Further Responses, indicated “ ‘Contention interrogatories typically ask for facts that support contentions of a party rather than ask them to refute contentions, that the responding party made, in a pleading. “ ‘[T]he purpose of the Discovery Act is to permit a party to prepare himself for trial, not to require one party, at his expense, to prepare the case for his opponent.’ ” (Bunnell v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723.)”

Defendant argues: “Plaintiff’s objections have no basis in law. Contention interrogatories are allowed by statute. (Code Civil Procedure § 2030.010, subd. (b).) Parties may use contention interrogatories to ascertain the other parties’ contentions and “ ‘the facts, witnesses, and writings’ ” on which they are based. (Id.)

Moreover, Defendant is entitled to documents or facts that refute Plaintiff’s contentions as they relate to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses. (Code Civil Procedure § 2017.010 [“ ‘[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.’ ”].) Plaintiff must provide a complete and responsive answer as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.”

Plaintiff argues that on August 1, 2023, the Stanislaus County Superior Court entered a judgment in Lopez v. Covenant Living West, et al., which is a class action matter in which plaintiff is a member of the designated class and in which essentially the same wage and hour violations as those in the present action were settled. Plaintiff argues that the judgment likely operates as res judicata as to plaintiff’s wage and hour claims.

As defendant points out, plaintiff has not dismissed her wage and hour claims, nor has she sought leave to file an amended complaint. Because of this, defendant is justified in continuing to seek discovery regarding plaintiff’s claims as such discovery is currently relevant to this action. As such, plaintiff’s argument regarding relevance is without merit at this juncture.

Plaintiff’s objections that the interrogatories require plaintiff, at her expense, to prepare defendant’s case, is valid. Defendant specifically states that it expects plaintiff to “make a reasonable and good faith inquiry and investigate the information requested.” (Reply, p. 2, ll. 6-8.) While this would be a true statement related to information supporting plaintiff’s contentions, she is not required to conduct an investigation in an effort to assist defendant in refuting her claims.

Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (b) in support of its argument. The full text is cited above. What defendant appears to misunderstand is that that code section specifically references “the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based.” (Italics added.) Defendant is not seeking, by way of the interrogatories, any information upon which plaintiff bases her contentions. Defendant is asking plaintiff to seek out and provide information which refutes her claims. Such requests are not only improper for asking plaintiff to assist defendant in preparing its case, but the requests also implicate attorney work-product issues.

Contention interrogatories typically ask for facts that support contentions of a party rather than ask them to refute contentions, that the responding party made, in a pleading. “[T]he purpose of the Discovery Act is to permit a party to prepare himself for trial, not to require one party, at his expense, to prepare the case for his opponent.” (Bunnell v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 720, 723.)

Defendants motion will be denied.        

Sanctions

As noted above, defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

After considering the circumstances and argument of counsel for both parties, the court finds that circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. No sanctions shall be awarded against or in favor of either party.