25CV000331·monterey·Civil·Wage and Hour Class Action

Hearing todayGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

Enrique Caballero Sanchez v. D’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Special Interrogatories; Request for Admission; and Request for Production

Hearing date

Jun 12, 2026

Department

—

Judge

—

Prevailing

Mixed

Motion type

Motion to Compel Further Responses

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Motions to Compel Discoverypatterns & grant rates Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responsespatterns & grant rates

Causes of action

Wage and Hour Violations

Parties

PlaintiffEnrique Caballero Sanchez

DefendantD’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

Enrique Caballero Sanchez v. D’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to the Following Written Discovery and Request for Monetary Sanctions:

1. Form Interrogatories, Set One;

2. Special Interrogatories;

3. Request for Admission; and

4. Request for Production.

Hearing Date: June 12, 2026

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

The motion filed by Plaintiff Enrique Caballero Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant D’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California (“Defendant”) to further respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Legal Standard.

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court ... any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.]

A party serving interrogatories may file a motion for an order compelling further responses if that party believes an answer is, among other things, evasive or incomplete, or an objection lacks merit or is too broad. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).] If a timely motion to compel is filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure to answer the interrogatories fully. [Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other Motion to Compel Further Responses in MONTEREY All MONTEREY County rulings Other Wage and Hour Class Action cases Other granted rulings in MONTEREY

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

In assessing the motion, a court should generally consider the following factors: (1) the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; (2) the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought. [Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.]

Evasive discovery responses and objections lacking adequate justification are considered “misuses of the discovery process.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subds. (e)-(f).] The Court “shall” require the party receiving discovery to pay the propounding party’s reasonable expenses, such as attorney fees, for enforcing discovery unless it finds that the sanctioned party acted with “substantial justification” or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (d).] “Our courts have interpreted the term ‘substantial justification’ to mean ‘well-grounded in both law and fact.’ Thus, to avoid sanctions, the deponent must show there were reasonable grounds to believe an objection was valid or that the answer given was adequate.” [City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 291 (internal citations, bracketed text, and ellipsis omitted).]

Preliminarily, the Court finds that the meet-and-confer requirement has been met.

The Court rejects Defendant’s broad contention that class-wide discovery is categorically unavailable before certification. Discovery directed toward class certification issues or allegedly uniform employment policies is routinely discoverable before certification. [Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552-558; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007)

The Court also rejects Defendant’s suggestion that the existence of the Regalado Settlement excuses discovery altogether. Even assuming Regalado released certain claims through May 21, 2023, Defendant’s own position is that discovery remains relevant from May 22, 2023 forward. The Regalado Settlement, therefore, supports narrowing the temporal scope, not withholding responsive documents altogether.

Nos. 1.1, 3.1-3.7, and 4.1-4.2: Defendant filed supplemental responses on January 16, 2026. The supplemental responses narrowed the dispute and rendered these interrogatories moot. Therefore, as to these interrogatories, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

Nos. 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, and 14.1-14.2: These interrogatories seek information concerning Defendant’s investigation of the “incident,” including witnesses, statements, reports, recordings, and related investigative materials. Defendant’s responses largely rely on privilege, work product, privacy, overbreadth, and pre-certification discovery objections. The existence of an investigation and nonprivileged factual information, as well as the identities of percipient witnesses, are generally discoverable. [Code Civ.

Proc. § 2017.010.] However, these interrogatories may implicate legitimate attorney-client and work-product concerns. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall provide further verified responses identifying nonprivileged facts, witnesses, investigations, statements, and material responsive to Nos. 12.1- 12.7, 13.1-13.2, and 14.1-14.2. Defendant may, however, preserve legitimate attorney-client and work product objections.

No. 15.1: Defendant filed an answer asserting numerous affirmative defenses. [Toscano Decl. at ¶ 3.] No. 15.1 seeks the facts, witnesses, and documents supporting those alleged defenses. California law permits the discovery of the factual basis supporting affirmative defenses through interrogatories. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (b); Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282.] Defendant may not simultaneously assert affirmative defenses and refuse to disclose the facts supporting them. The motion is GRANTED as to No. 15.1, and Defendant shall identify the facts, witnesses, and documents presently known that support each affirmative defense, to the extent such information is not privileged.

No. 17.1: This request seeks the facts, witnesses, and documents supporting Defendant’s denials of Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions. The Court has tentatively ruled that the factual bases for Defendant’s admissions or denials are directly relevant. The request appears to seek standard contention discovery. The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall disclose the nonprivileged facts and identify documents and witnesses presently supporting its denials.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED because Defendant acted with substantial justification for portions of the dispute, including the Regalado Settlement issues, the noncertification motion, and the parties’ ongoing efforts related to supplemental responses.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED as follows:

As to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 3.1-3.7, and 4.1-4.2, the motion is DENIED as moot based on Defendant’s supplemental responses and Plaintiff’s narrowing of the motion.

As to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, and 14.1-14.2, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall provide further verified responses identifying all nonprivileged facts, witnesses, and investigative information responsive to the interrogatories.

As to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide the factual bases, witnesses, and documents supporting its denials of Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant shall serve verified, further responses consistent with this Tentative Ruling within 20 days from the date of the Court’s order. Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

The motion filed by Plaintiff Enrique Caballero Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant D’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California (“Defendant”) to further respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Preliminarily, the Court finds that the meet-and-confer requirement has been met.

No. 1: Defendant’s privacy objections to obtaining the contact information of potential class members can be accommodated through a Belaire West notice, a protective order, or a reasonable limitation of the class period. [See Williams, 3 Cal.5th 531.] The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide a Belaire-West procedure, and thereafter, produce responsive contact information or covered employees, subject to Regalado limitations discussed above.

Nos. 2-14: These interrogatories seek information central to certification issues. Defendant repeatedly argues that class-wide discovery should be denied because Plaintiff worked in only one work segment, yet those very arguments make class-wide discovery relevant. Plaintiff is entitled to test Defendant’s assertions regarding work segment differences, supervision, job duties, compensation practices, and common policies. The Court’s denial of Defendant’s noncertification motion further weakens Defendant’s argument that discovery should be restricted to Plaint workers. The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall provide verified further responses without boilerplate objections.

Nos. 15-23: Defendant served supplemental responses to these interrogatories. The remaining dispute is whether Defendant may limit its responses to Plaintiff’s own position and preserve broad objections. A response restricted solely to Plaintiff’s work position does not fully answer classwide interrogatories directed toward “Covered Employees.” That said, Defendant has supplemented, and some narrowing is appropriate. The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall serve amended responses addressing covered employees rather than only Plaintiff’s position (i.e., Plant workers).

Nos. 24-27: These interrogatories concern policies, procedures, and related employment practices. Such information is directly relevant to class certification and merits issues. To the extent Defendant maintains policies that differ by business segment, discovery regarding those differences itself is discoverable. The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall serve further substantive responses identifying policies, practices, and applicable workforce distinctions.

Plaintiff’s sanctions request is DENIED. Defendant served supplemental interrogatories after the motion was filed, and narrowed a number of the issues presented. Defendant’s positions regarding the effect of the Regalado Settlement, the permissible scope of pre-certification

discovery, and the then-pending non-certification motion constitute substantial justification for portions of its opposition, even though the Court ultimately concludes further responses are required. Under these circumstances, an award of sanctions would be unjust. Accordingly, all requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED.

Based on the foregoing, the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion is as follows:

No. 1 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide responsive contact information through a Belaire West procedure, subject to an appropriate protective order and Regalado Settlement limitations.

Nos. 15-23 are GRANTED. Defendant to provide supplemental responses with classwide information responsive to the interrogatories and clarify whether any information is being withheld pursuant to objections.

Nos. 24-27 are GRANTED. Defendant to provide substantive responses regarding policies, practices, job classifications, supervision, and related workforce information.

Plaintiff’s sanctions request is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Admission

The motion filed by Plaintiff Enrique Caballero Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant D’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California (“Defendant”) to further respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

The party receiving requests for admission must respond in writing under oath to each request individually. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subd. (a).] A party can respond by either admitting, denying, or objecting to the request. [Id. at subd. (b).] If part of a request is objectionable, the responding party must answer the unaffected portion. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230, subd. (a).] Any denial of all or part of a request must be clear and unequivocal. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220; American Federation of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 247, 268.]

When the propounding party believes that the responses to requests for admission are inadequate or that any objections to the requests are unjustified, that party may file a motion to compel further responses. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.] The grounds for such a motion include that (1) the answer to a particular request for admission is evasive or incomplete, or (2) an objection to a request for admission is without merit or too general. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).] The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless it finds that the individual subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposing sanctions unjust. [Id. at subd. (d).]

Preliminarily, the Court finds that the meet-and-confer requirement has been met.

Nos. 1 and 5: These requests seek admissions concerning whether Defendant maintained written meal premium and rest premium policies during the relevant period. Whether Defendant maintained such policies is a discrete factual matter uniquely within Defendant’s knowledge. The requests do not appear to seek legal conclusions, expert opinions, or employee-specific information. The Court rejects Defendant’s privacy, burden, and pre-certification objections. Defendant either maintained such policies or did not. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion as to Nos. 1 and 5 because they request straightforward factual admissions regarding Defendant’s own written policies. Defendant must admit, deny, or qualify the requests.

Nos. 2-4, 6-8: These requests concern Defendant’s calculation and payment of meal period and rest period premium wages. The requests seek admissions concerning Defendant’s compensation practices rather than individualized employee data. The Court finds the requests directly relevant to Plaintiff’s meal period and rest period theories and concludes Defendant has not demonstrated a valid basis for refusing to answer. The motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 2-4, and 6-8 because the requests concern Defendant’s payroll practices and compensation methods. The requests seek factual admissions and do not constitute impermissible merits discovery.

No. 9: This request seeks an admission regarding Defendant’s calculation of employees’ regular rates of pay. Regular rate calculations are central to Plaintiff’s overtime theories. The motion is GRANTED as to this request, and Defendant’s objection does not persuade the Court to rule otherwise. Indeed, the request seeks a straightforward admission or denial concerning Defendant’s compensation practices and payroll calculations.

Nos. 10-11: These requests seek admissions concerning Defendant’s treatment of premium payments in compensation calculations. These requests concern Defendant’s own payroll practices and are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The motion is GRANTED as to these requests because they seek factual admission concerning Defendant’s compensation practices and do not justify objection-only responses.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. The request is DENIED. The dispute involved ongoing supplemental responses, the Regalado Settlement, the non-certification motion, and genuine disagreements regarding the permissible scope of class discovery. While Defendant’s responses were deficient, it does not appear that Defendant lacked substantial justification for every position it advanced.

The motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall serve verified further responses, without objection except as otherwise permitted by the Discovery Act, to Nos. 1-11 within 20 days from the date of the Court’s order. The sanctions request is DENIED.

Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production

The motion filed by Plaintiff Enrique Caballero Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant D’Arrigo Bros. Co., of California (“Defendant”) to further respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Each party’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

If a party responding to a request for production fails to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling as specified in that party’s statement of compliance, the requesting party may file a motion for an order to enforce compliance. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (a).] A motion to compel further responses to a request for production must include specific facts demonstrating “good cause” to justify the discovery sought by the demand. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).] If the moving party shows good cause for producing documents, the burden shifts to the objecting party to justify the objections. [Kirkland v.

Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.] The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully files or opposes a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents, or a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make it unjust to impose sanctions. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), and 2031.320, subd. (b).]

Preliminarily, the Court finds that the meet-and-confer requirement has been met.

Regarding Defendant’s mootness argument, while supplemental responses were filed, this motion is not entirely moot because Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of those supplemental responses and contends documents continue to be withheld without sufficiently clear statements of compliance.

Nos. 9-18 and 20-31: These requests generally seek organizational structure information, supervisory and management information, policies and procedures, payroll and timekeeping materials, reimbursement documents, agreements and contacts, bonus and incentive compensation materials, documents supporting Defendant’s defenses, and interrogatory responses. These categories are facially relevant to Plaintiff’s wage and hour theories and anticipated class certification issues. For example, No. 9 seeks organizational structure information that may identify decision-makers responsible for compensation and scheduling practices.

Defendant’s burden, privacy, and confidentiality objections are largely conclusory. The record contains generalized assertions about the burden but little evidence quantifying the burden of producing responsive corporate records. To the extent responsive materials may implicate employee privacy interests, those concerns can ordinarily be addressed through a protective order, redactions, or a Belaire-West procedure rather than wholesale refusal to produce. [Belaire- West, 149 Cal.App.4th at 562.]

As to these Requests, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve further verified responses that clearly: (1) state whether responsive documents exist; (2) state whether all responsive documents are being produced; (3) identify whether documents are withheld based upon specific objections; (4) identify any privilege claims with an appropriate privilege log; and (5) produce responsive documents subject to any appropriate temporal limitation tied to the Regalado Settlement.

The scope of this discovery is not restricted solely to “Plant” employees. Defendant’s noncertification motion was denied, and the present record does not establish that company-wide discovery is categorially improper. [See Koleson Dec. at ¶¶ 3-5.]

The sanctions request of each party is DENIED. The circumstances support a finding of substantial justification, including that Defendant served significant supplemental responses after the motion was filed, Plaintiff prevailed only partially, the Regalado Settlement presented a legitimate discovery dispute, and the non-certification motion created a legitimate scope dispute. Therefore, it appears both parties acted with substantial justification in light of the circumstances.

The motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 9-18 and 20-31. Defendant shall serve further verified responses within 20 days of the Court’s order, which Plaintiff shall prepare consistent with this Tentative Ruling. Such further responses shall (1) remove unsupported boilerplate objections; (2) clearly state compliance, inability to comply, or specific objections as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.240; (3) produce all nonprivileged responsive documents within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control; (4) provide a privilege log for any documents withheld on privilege grounds; (5) produce documents for at least the period

beginning May 22, 2023 forward without prejudice to Plaintiff later seeking additional prerelease discovery upon a more particularized showing.

Each party’s sanctions request is DENIED.