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

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.]

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).]

Discussion.

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)

40 Cal.4th 360, 370-374; and Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-563.]

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.

Sanctions.

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.

Conclusion.

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.

3