Dr Michele Decroix vs Mission Support and Test Services LLC et al

Case Number

24CV05744

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/15/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; (5) Motions to Compel; Motion re Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

Dr. Michele DeCroix v. Mission Support and Test Services, LLC, et al.     (Judge Sterne)

Case No. 24CV05744

           

Hearing Date: September 15, 2025                                       

HEARING:              1. Motion of Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix to Compel Defendant Mission Support and Test Services, LLC to Provide Further Responses to General Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions

                  

                                    2. Motion of Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix to Compel Defendant Mission Support and Test Services, LLC to Provide Further Responses to Employment Law Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions

                                    3. Motion of Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix to Compel Defendant Mission Support and Test Services, LLC to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions

                                    4. Motion of Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix to Compel Defendant Mission Support and Test Services, LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions

                                    5. Motion of Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix to Compel Defendant Mission Support and Test Services, LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions

                                    6. Motion of Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Person Most Qualified Deposition

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix: Jessica C. Gregg, Attwood Gregg LLP

                                    For Defendants Mission Support and Test Services, LLC and        David Baldwin: Laurie DeYoung, Daniella J. Lee,    Jackson Lewis P.C.

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. The motions of plaintiff, Dr. DeCroix, to compel further responses to (1) Form Interrogatories – General, (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment, (3) Special Interrogatories, (4) Requests for Admissions, and (5) Requests for Production of Documents are moot, as to further responses, due to the service of subsequent responses. However, they are not moot as to the awarding of sanctions or the production of a privilege log.

          a. Sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against Mission Support and Test Services for each discovery motion, for a total of $5,000.00, payable to counsel for plaintiff no later than October 13, 2025.

         b. For the Requests for Production of Documents, Mission Support and Test Services shall serve an updated privilege log, containing sufficient factual information for plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the claim of privilege, no later than October 6, 2025.

2. The motion of plaintiff, Dr. DeCroix, for sanctions for failure to comply with the Person Most Qualified deposition is denied without prejudice.

Background:

This action was commenced on October 16, 2024, by the filing of the Complaint by plaintiff Dr. Michele DeCroix (“Dr. DeCroix” or “plaintiff”), against defendants Mission Support and Test Services, LLC (“MSTS”) and David Baldwin (“Baldwin”) for: (1) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (2) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation, (5) Whistleblower Retaliation, (6) Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, and (7) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses.

On January 10, 2025, MSTS and Baldwin answered the complaint with a general denial and 25 affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff has served discovery requests on MSTS, as well as noticed the depositions of MSTS’s Persons Most Qualified (“PMQ”) for several categories of topics. Following initial responses to the discovery, extensive meet and confer attempts, and supplemental responses followed by additional meet and confer attempts, plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to: Form Interrogatories – General; Form Interrogatories – Employment; Special Interrogatories; Requests for Admissions; and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against MSTS related to the depositions of MSTS’s PMQs.

On August 29, 2025, following the filing of the present motion, MSTS served verified supplemental responses to the discovery requests, and opposes the motions.

Analysis:

As an initial matter: Plaintiff’s reply briefs and accompanying declarations introduce new evidence and new arguments that were not raised by MSTS’ opposition. “ ‘[P]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument.’ [Citations.]” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538.) The new arguments and evidence, presented by plaintiff in reply, that do not squarely address issues raised by the oppositions, will not be considered.

            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.)

“Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. “ ‘[I]t is a ‘ “central precept” ’ of the Civil Discovery Act . . . that discovery ‘ “be essentially self-executing[.]” ’ ” [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390.)

            Form and Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks further responses to:

1. General Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, and 13.2;
2. Employment Law Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 209.2, 211.3, 215.1, and 217.1;
3. Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 11, 14, and 15.

On August 29, 2025, following the filing of the present motion, MSTS served verified supplemental responses to General Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Lee Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. J.) By way of his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges the service of verified supplemental responses but renews his request for monetary sanctions. As such, other than the request for monetary sanctions, the motion is moot.

On August 29, 2025, following the filing of the present motion, MSTS served verified supplemental responses to Employment Law For Interrogatories, Set One. (Lee Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. I.) By was of his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges the service of verified supplemental responses, but states that there has been no further response to Employment Law Form Interrogatory No. 217.1. However, by way of his separate statement, plaintiff only argues: “Following counsel’s meet and confer discussions, MSTS served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s General Form Interrogatory 217.1 on May 14, 2025. However, despite Plaintiff’s requests, MSTS has failed to serve verifications for their supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s General Form Interrogatories. The lack of verifications amounts to no response at all.” (Sep. Stmnt., p. 11, ll. 14-18.) Verification was subsequently served for the responses. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. H.) As such, the motion is moot except as to the issue of monetary sanctions.

On August 29, 2025, following the filing of the present motion, MSTS served verified supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Lee Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. I.) By way of his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges the service of verified supplemental responses, but states that there has been no further response to Special Interrogatory No. 11. However, MSTS did provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, as evidenced by the Lee declaration. As such, the motion is moot except as to the issue of monetary sanctions.

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.”

As noted above, the three motions to compel further responses to interrogatories are moot except as to the issue of monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff seeks the following monetary sanctions in conjunction with the motions to compel further responses to interrogatories:

Form Interrogatories - General: $1,000.00.

Form Interrogatories - Employment Law: $1,000.00

Special Interrogatories: $1,000.00

As evidenced by the declarations of plaintiff’s counsel, and the experience of the court in analyzing similar motions, the above amounts represent significant discounts to the actual attorney’s fees incurred for the necessity of bringing the motions.

“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).)

“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).)

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:

“(a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.

“(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.

“(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.

“(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

“(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.

“(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.

“(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.

“(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.

“(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

“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).)

Here, despite numerous attempts by plaintiff to elicit code compliant responses, MSTS refused to provide code-compliant responses, and primarily asserted meritless boiler-plate objections, most of which could have no application to the specific requests. Had MSTS not filed additional responses following the filing of the present motion, and mooted the motions with respect to the requests, the court would have ruled in favor of plaintiff and ordered further code-compliant responses absent objections. Without ruling on the issue at this time, the subsequently served responses still appear to contain the improper boiler-plate objections.

There is no justification for MSTS’ evasive responses and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The sanctions requested will be granted in favor of plaintiff and against MSTS.

Requests for Admission

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8.

On August 29, 2025, following the filing of the present motion, MSTS served verified supplemental responses to the Requests for Admission. (Lee Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. F.) By way of his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges the service of verified supplemental responses but renews his request for monetary sanctions. As such, other than the request for monetary sanctions, the motion is moot.

RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”

“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).

Although admissions should not be substantively compound, the responding party has an affirmative duty to “admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).)

Although the motion is moot as to the requests, plaintiff seeks $1,000.00 in monetary sanctions, which, like the requests for sanctions related to the interrogatories, is a significant reduction to the actual attorney’s fees incurred for the necessity of bringing the motion.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Here, MSTS’s responses were nothing short of bad-faith gamesmanship. For example, Request for Admission No. 4 asks MSTS to:

“Admit that YOU did not investigate PLAINTIFF’s complaints about Mark Martinez prior to receiving PLAINTIFF’s demand letter on or around January 24, 2024.”

The request is simple, straightforward, and facially is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rather than provide a code-compliant response, MSTS responded:

“Defendant objects to this request on the following grounds:

“(a) it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain generally, and specifically with respect to ‘investigate’ and ‘complaints about Mark Martinez;’

“(b) it is overbroad as to scope and time and therefore unduly burdensome;

“(c) it is compound;

“(d) it is harassing, oppressive and therefore unduly burdensome;

“(e) it is cumulative, duplicative and therefore unduly burdensome;

“(f) it violates the privacy rights of Defendant and/or third parties;

“(g) it is neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;

“(h) it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine;

(i) it seeks information which contains confidential, proprietary, private, and/or “trade secret information;

“(j) it assumes facts which have not been established thereby forcing Defendant to adopt factual inaccuracies in order to provide a response to the request;

“(k) the information sought is publicly available and, therefore, equally available to Plaintiff.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:

“Responding Party is unable to admit or deny this request because it is vague, overbroad and compound, Responding Party will answer a restated request.”

All the responses follow this same pattern. There is nothing “vague,” “overbroad,” or “compound” about the requests.

There is no justification for MSTS’ evasive responses and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The sanctions requested will be granted in favor of plaintiff and against MSTS.

            Requests for Production of Documents

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos 14, 17, 21, 22, and 25, as well as an order that MSTS be required to provide a supplemental Privilege Log.

On August 29, 2025, following the filing of the present motion, MSTS served verified supplemental responses to the Requests for Production of Documents. (Lee Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. I.) By way of his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges the service of verified supplemental responses, but states that there has been no further response to Request for Production No. 21, or a supplemental Privilege Log. However, the declaration of MSTS’s counsel shows that a second supplemental response to request No. 21 was served on August 29, 2025. (Lee Decl., Exh. I.) As such, the motion is moot except as to the service of a supplemental privilege log, and the issue of monetary sanctions.

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).)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

Although the motion is moot with respect to the actual responses, as with the other motions, plaintiff seeks reduced monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00

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, subd. (h).)

Here, MSTS’s responses to the requests contain the same meritless boilerplate objections as set forth in responses to essentially all the other discovery requests. The objections constitute a misuse of the discovery process.

There is no justification for MSTS’ evasive responses and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The sanctions requested will be granted in favor of plaintiff and against MSTS.

As noted above, due to MSTS asserting privilege in its responses to the requests for production of documents, plaintiff is requesting that MSTS be ordered to provide an updated privilege log. Given that the assertion of the privilege indicates that documents were withheld based on privilege, the request is reasonable.

If any documents are withheld based on a claim of privilege, MSTS will be ordered to provide a privilege log pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, subdivision (c), with sufficient factual information for plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the claim of privilege.

            Motion for Sanctions Related to MSTS’ Person Most Qualified     

Making claims that MSTS engaged in obstructionist conduct that impaired his ability to obtain meaningful testimony from MSTS’s PMQ, plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,436.73, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), which is cited above.

By way of declaration, plaintiff’s counsel describes a series of events that essentially amounts to scheduling conflicts and the substitution of the persons that were designated as PMQs.

In opposition, MSTS’s counsel provides a declaration describing MSTS’s position on the scheduling conflicts, and further explains why a substitution of the designated PMQs was necessary. There is no requirement that the identity of the PMQ be disclosed prior to the deposition date.

           

While the court understands plaintiff’s frustrations at the scheduling conflicts and the substitution of the designated PMQs, and notes that a motion brought on different grounds may have been successful, the court does not find that the circumstances constitute an abuse of the discovery process at this point.

The motion will be denied without prejudice. However, should further conduct of MSTS sufficiently demonstrate that it is being obstructionist, or otherwise engaging abuses of the discovery process, plaintiff will not be precluded from including the current requested monetary sanctions in any subsequent motion. The parties will be expected to fully cooperate regarding the scheduling, re-scheduling, and conduct of any further depositions, PMQ or otherwise.