Jane Doe vs Brett Williams et al

Case Number

25CV01213

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/20/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

The motion of plaintiff Jane Doe to compel further responses to discovery is continued to March 20, 2026. Plaintiff shall pay to the court filing fees for the two additional motions included in plaintiff’s moving papers. Counsel for plaintiff and for defendant Article Student Living PM Services LLC shall further meet and confer, in person, by telephone, or by video conference, as discussed herein. On or before March 9, 2026, the parties shall file either a joint report or separate reports identifying matters that have been resolved by the further meet and confer and matters that remain in dispute for adjudication by the court.

Background:

On February 25, 2025, plaintiff Jane Doe filed the complaint in this action asserting six causes of action against defendants Article Student Living PM Services LLC (ASL) and Brett Williams: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.); (2) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) race discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (6) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy.

On March 28, 2025, ASL filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 37 affirmative defenses.

On June 2, 2025, plaintiff served on ASL her first sets of form interrogatories—general, form interrogatories—employment law, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Kenworthy decl., ¶ 2 & exhibit A.)

On July 21, 2025, ASL served its initial responses to the discovery requests. (Kenworthy decl., ¶ 3 & exhibit B.)

On August 15, 2025, the court entered its protective order on the stipulation of the parties regarding confidential information and documents.

Following a letter from counsel for plaintiff, on September 3, 2025, ASL served its verifications to its responses to the respective discovery. (Kenworthy decl., ¶¶ 4, 5 & exhibits C, D.)

On September 29, 2025, Williams filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 11 affirmative defenses.

Following further meet and confer efforts, on October 3, 2025, ASL served amended responses to the discovery. (Kenworthy decl., ¶¶ 6, 7 & exhibits D, F.) There was no further meet and confer efforts made. (Smith decl., ¶ 11.)

On October 21, 2025, plaintiff filed this motion to compel to obtain orders:

“1.       Compelling [ASL] to provide further, verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, Nos. 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3; Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 13, and 14; Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 21;

“2.       Compelling [ASL] to produce all documents responsive to those requests; and

“3.       Requiring [ASL] to serve a privilege log for any responsive documents withheld on the basis of privilege.”

The motion is opposed by ASL.

Analysis:

There are procedural issues that must be addressed before the court can rule on the merits of this motion.

First, plaintiff has filed one motion seeking to compel further responses to interrogatories under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), seeking to compel further responses to requests for production of documents under section 2031.310, subdivision (a), and seeking to compel compliance under section 2031.320, subdivision (a). Notwithstanding being combined into a single document, these motions for orders under three separate code sections are three motions requiring the payment of three filing fees. (See Gov. Code, § 70617, subds. (a)(4) [discovery motions require filing fees], (f) [“Regardless of whether each motion or matter is heard at a single hearing or at separate hearings, the filing fees … apply separately to each motion ….”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1003 [“An application for an order is a motion.”].) Plaintiff will therefore need to pay the missing two motion filing fees before the court can resolve the motion or motions. (Note: To avoid confusion given the papers filed by the parties, the court will refer to the collection of discovery motions now before the court in a single document in the singular.)

Second, as pointed out by ASL in opposition and not disputed in reply, ASL served amended responses following a meet and confer process of the parties, but there was no further meet and confer process following those amended responses and the filing of this motion. The court will require a further meet and confer on the responses before the court rules on the motion.

Although these two matters will necessitate a continuance of this matter, for the guidance of the parties in the meet and confer process, the court makes the following observations.

With respect to form interrogatories, the generic definition of “incident” is problematic in a case such as this where the complaint alleges multiple and repeated events as the basis for workplace claims. (See, e.g., Complaint, ¶ 11.) General questions beget general answers. In the absence of plaintiff providing meaningful guidance as to the reasonable scope of this definition, ASL would appropriately provide a reasonable definition of “incident” and provide a response based upon that definition.

Burden is not an appropriate objection without an evidentiary showing that the burden is oppressive. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)

A party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to respond fully to discovery so that responses are as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (E.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) Although a party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to respond fully, a compliant effort may nonetheless not capture all responsive information or documents because of information or documents that are unreasonably difficult to obtain. As a consequence, a discovery response must demonstrate completeness: All the information provided in response must be shown to be all of the information retrieved by a compliant effort.

Objections—and especially boilerplate objections—obscure whether information or documents are withheld from the response. Often, objections are designed to avoid default if something further is discovered and do not reflect any withheld information. To make these concepts match, the substantive response must demonstrate that it is complete except for clearly delineated information or documents withheld on the basis of one or more objections. Such delineations may be made by identifying categories of information or documents actually withheld or, as necessary, by a privilege log. Because there is a protective order in place addressing confidential information, there should be no, or few, responsive documents or information withheld on the basis of privacy, and any such responsive documents or information must be similarly delineated. Whether a privilege log is necessary as to specific documents or information depends upon the nature of the information or documents and the nature of the objection; a privilege log is not necessary simply because there is a claim of privilege or objection.

Where records are identified in a response or produced for inspection, the responding party must describe the records with sufficient particularity that they can be easily located with documents responsive to a particular interrogatory or request easily distinguished from other documents produced or identified.

With this guidance, the court expects the parties to further meet and confer and to report to the court what matters remain in dispute for the court to adjudicate.