Maria Azari vs Covenant Living West Inc

Case Number

22CV01556

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 07/25/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, and request for monetary sanctions is granted as follows:

1. Defendant shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objection, to special interrogatories numbers 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19, no later than August 15, 2025.
2. The motion is denied as moot for responses to special interrogatories numbers 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. However, the court overrules defendant’s objections to the interrogatories. If any information was withheld, based on an objection, defendant shall provide that information to plaintiff by way of verified supplemental responses.
3. Monetary sanctions of $2,000.00 are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, to be paid to counsel for plaintiff no later than August 29, 2025.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents and things, set two, is granted as follows:
   1. Defendant shall provide further code-compliant responses to requests for production 26 through 29, without objection except as to privilege, no later than August 15, 2025. Defendant shall specifically identify which documents, or category of documents, previously produced are responsive to each request.
   2. For any document withheld based on a claim of privilege, defendant shall produce a privilege log, containing sufficient factual information for plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the claim of privilege.
   3. Monetary sanctions of $2,000.00 are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, to be paid to counsel for plaintiff no later than August 29, 2025.

Background:

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

The complaint asserted 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.

On April 19, 2024, the court granted defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings, with leave to amend as to those claims which are alleged under or based on Labor Code section 1102.5.

On April 23, 2024, Azari filed a first amended complaint alleging one cause of action against Covenant Living for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 et seq. On June 24, 2024, with leave of court, Azari filed a second amended complaint (the SAC), also alleging one cause of action against Covenant Living for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 et seq. As alleged in the operative SAC:

Azari was hired by Covenant Living as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in April 2017. (SAC, ¶ 8.) Covenant Living set the daily tasks, work duties, and rate of pay of Azari who was to be compensated at the rate of $17.12 per hour. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.) For six to eight months, Azari, who worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, was not paid overtime wages and was not permitted to take meal or rest breaks because Covenant Living was understaffed. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-15.) In addition, Covenant Living failed to keep accurate records of Azari’s hours of work and meal breaks, to maintain such records for three years, and to provide accurate, itemized wage statements showing the number of hours worked. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.)

On May 16, 2021, Azari and four of her co-workers told the administrator of Covenant Living that it was unfair to assign 120 patients to only five CNAs because it did not enable them to provide the necessary standard of care to the patients without foregoing meal and rest breaks and requiring them to work overtime for which they were not being paid. (SAC, ¶ 16.) The administrator of Covenant Living “brushed them off laughingly telling them they would have a ‘pizza party’ and ordered them to get back to work.” (Ibid.) Azari also informed Covenant Living’s then supervising nurse, Michelle, that due to being short staffed, CNAs and nurses had developed a routine of “splitting” the checking of residents’ vital signs and that disregarding this routine would result in missed meal and rest breaks and unpaid overtime hours. (Id. at ¶¶ 19-20.)

Michelle told Azari that she had to listen to her nurse and brought up a grudge that Michelle evidently held against Azari from a previous conversation during which Azari had tried to persuade Michelle to find nurses to cover for those who called off work when they were short-staffed. (SAC, ¶¶ 20.) After becoming visibly annoyed during the conversation with Azari, Michelle ordered Azari to take a five-minute break, and a couple of minutes later, told Azari to leave, stating that Azari would be called to come into work the next day. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

Azari was not called back into work the next day. (SAC, ¶ 23.) Azari called the Human Resource Director of Covenant Living asking if she could come into work, but the Human Resource Director alleged that Azari had abandoned her job without permission or notice and accused Azari of refusing to care for the residents. (Ibid.) Azari explained what happened the day prior. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Though the Human Resource Director said she would call Azari back after an investigation, Azari received a letter 10 days later stating that Azari had been terminated on as of four days prior to the day Michelle demanded that Azari leave the work location. (Id. at ¶ 25.) (Note: Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the SAC appear to include typographical errors with respect to the date Azari was terminated.)

On July 24, 2024, Covenant Living filed a demurrer to the SAC on the grounds that the sole cause of action alleged in the SAC was barred by the res judicata impact of the Lopez settlement and that Azari had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5. Covenant Living also filed a motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the SAC.

On October 25, 2024, the demurrer was overruled and the motion to strike was denied.

On November 7, 2024, Covenant Living filed its answer to the SAC asserting a general denial and 24 affirmative defenses.

On November 27, 2024, plaintiff served form interrogatories, set two (“FIs”) and requests for production of documents and things, set two (“RFPs”) on defendant.

On January 31, 2025, defendant served responses to the FIs and RFPs.

Deeming the responses insufficient, plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with defendant regarding further responses. Defendant largely ignored the attempts to meet and confer. Not resolving the issues, plaintiff filed the current motions to compel further responses to FIs Nos. 14-25 and RFPs Nos. 26-29, as well as a privilege log, on April 2, 2025. Plaintiff additionally seeks monetary sanctions for each motion.

Defendant opposes the motions.

Analysis:

            Discovery

“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.)

            Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks further responses to SIs, set two, Nos. 14-25. [Note: SI No. 16 is not included in plaintiff’s separate statement. As such, there will be no ruling regarding that SI.)

SIs Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 request information regarding percipient witnesses that defendant identified in response to previous discovery. The SIs are identical, except with regard to the individual that is identified as a witness. The SIs read:

“State [witnesses name]’s LOCATING INFORMATION (As used herein, the terms “ ‘LOCATING INFORMATION’ ” shall mean the last known mailing address, last known home address and/or last known work address as well as the last four digits of the person’s social security in order to enable PLAINTIFF (As used herein, the term “PLAINTIFF” shall mean and refer to Plaintiff Maria Azari) to locate the identified person) unless DEFENDANT’S (As used herein, the term “ ‘DEFENDANT’ ” shall mean and to Defendant COVENANT LIVING WEST, INC.) counsel of record also represents [witness name].”

To each of SIs Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19, defendant responded:

“Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information protected by a third party’s right to privacy. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526-527; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.) Defendant objections to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and/or conjunctive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, Subd. (f).) Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2030.010 subd. (a); Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1417.)”

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.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides that, “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.”

Defendant’s justification for withholding the requested contact information for the witnesses is based on privacy. However, defendant’s arguments are misplaced, and the opposition cites cases that are clearly distinguishable and inapplicable to the requests. It does not matter that the witnesses are no longer employed by defendant.

“Central to the discovery process is the identification of potential witnesses. “ ‘The disclosure of the names and addresses of potential witnesses is a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery.’ “ [Citation.] Indeed, our discovery system is founded on the understanding that parties use discovery to obtain names and contact information for possible witnesses as the starting point for further investigations: “ ‘The Civil Discovery Act also provides that a party may obtain information by the use of various methods, including oral and written deposition. [Citation.] The party’s ability to subpoena witnesses presumes that he has the witnesses’ contact information.’ ” [Citation.] One glance at the form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council, particularly the interrogatories in the 12.0 series, demonstrates how fundamentally routine the discovery of witness contact information is. These standard form interrogatories request the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses to the relevant incident, persons possessing tangible objects relevant to the investigation, and persons who have been interviewed or give statements about the incident, or made a report or investigation of the incident. [Citation.]” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250.)

Plaintiff is clearly entitled to contact information for witnesses identified by defendant. Defendant will be ordered to provide further responses to SIs Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 without objections.

SIs Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are essentially contention interrogatories.

Defendant’s initial responses were not compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. The responses essentially asserted several meritless boilerplate objections and then stated that defendant has produced nonprivileged documents in lieu of a further response. No specific documents were identified, nor did defendant refer to the Code section that permits a party to refer to responsive documents.

“If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230; italics added.)

Because the responses were not code compliant, the court would have granted the motion with respect to SIs Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. However, as noted above, defendant served amended responses to these SIs on June 27, 2025, making the motion moot with respect to these SIs. Other than overruling defendant’s objections, the motion with respect to these SIs will be denied as moot. The court assumes that no information was withheld based on any of the objections and that the responses are complete. If information was withheld based on the unmeritorious objections, defendant shall provide that information to plaintiff.

            Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff seeks further responses to RFPs Nos 26-29, as well as, or in the alternative, a code compliant privilege log.

Defendant argues that it has provided code-compliant responses and has already produced the responsive documents as well as a privilege log. The privilege log was served on June 27, 2025. (Chan Decl., ¶ 11.)

RFP No. 26 requests: “Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, witness statements, internal complaint forms, internal documents used to document violations including emails, notes, results and/or findings regarding DEFENDANT’s investigation into the alleged incident involving PLAINTIFF in which Plaintiff allegedly violated Defendant’s policies by abandoning and neglecting the residents in her care, being insubordinate, and exhibiting disorderly and unprofessional behavior in the workplace.”

RFP No. 27 requests: “Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, witness statements, internal complaint forms, internal documents used to document violations including emails, notes, results and/or findings regarding DEFENDANT’s investigation into the alleged incident involving PLAINTIFF that allegedly occurred on or about May 16, 2021.”

RFP No. 28 requests: “Any and all DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, witness statements, notes, results and/or findings relied upon by DEFENDANT in making the decision to terminate PLAINTIFF’s employment with YOU.”

RFP No. 29 requests: “Any and all DOCUMENTS YOU provided to the Health And Human Services Agency regarding PLAINTIFF.”

Defendant responded to each of the RFPs with several objections and then state: “Defendant has produced all non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control to this request.”

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

The court agrees with defendant that the tense of the response is not material: “has produced” has the same meaning as “will produce”, with the only difference being one of past or future tense. Defendant is not required to state that it will produce documents that it has already produced. That would make no logical sense. However: “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a).)

Defendant will be ordered to provide further responses, without objection except as to privilege, that specifically identifies which previously produced documents are responsive to each request.

Although defendant claims that it produced a privilege log, following the filing of the present motion, the court will order that defendant produce a new privilege log in conjunction with the further responses. The privilege log shall comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 and provide sufficient factual information for plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the claim of privilege.

            Sanctions

“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 “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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., § 2031.310.)

“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).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff has prevailed on both motions and defendant’s refusal to provide code-compliant responses, assertion of numerous boilerplate objections, and failure to effectively engage in the meet and confer process was without justification and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he bills at $800.00 per hour on employment cases and that plaintiff has incurred $7,260.00 in attorney’s fees, and filing fee, for the motion to compel further responses to SIs and $6,860.00 in attorney’s fees, and filing fee, for the motion to compel further responses to RFPs. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $5,000.00, for each of the discovery motions, for a total of $10,000.00.

The court finds that a total of $10,000.00 for bringing the two motions is somewhat excessive based on the documents filed and the relatively straight-forward nature of the motions. The court will award sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00, in favor of plaintiff, to compensate for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the motions.