GUTIERREZ, WENDY MARILYN QUINTERO vs MERCADO, JOSE

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Alann Flores Canales) Defendants Jorge Mercado and Josephine Mercado's motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is GRANTED. The challenged responses are evasive, incomplete, and in several instances non-responsive to the interrogatories posed. Responses stating only that alleged defects were discovered "after they moved into the property" do not provide meaningful information concerning dates of discovery.

Likewise, merely repeating allegations from the complaint does not answer interrogatories seeking specific facts, identification of individuals, identification of documents, or disclosure of the factual basis for claimed knowledge. Particularly deficient are the responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 20. Plaintiff alleges that someone represented the foundation crack was merely "cosmetic," that a structural engineer inspected the property and reached certain conclusions, and that multiple HVAC estimates were obtained.

Defendants are entitled to discovery regarding the identities of those people, the factual basis for those allegations, and the documents supporting them. Plaintiff's responses do not provide that information.

The court rejects Plaintiff's argument that the motion should be denied because responsive information exists somewhere within plaintiffs' document production. The discovery statutes require direct, code-compliant responses. General references to produced documents do not satisfy that obligation. Accordingly, plaintiff Alann Flores Canales shall serve verified further responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 within 10 calendar days of service of the order.

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The court finds sanctions appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d). However, because substantial portions of counsel's work on this motion overlap with the companion motion brought against co-plaintiff Gutierrez, the court finds a reduction in the amount requested is warranted. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,260.00, payable jointly and severally by plaintiff Alann Flores Canales and plaintiffs' counsel to defendants, through counsel, within 30 days.

CV-24-009853 - JONES, LATISHA MONIQUE vs KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set Three) - GRANTED in part; b) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication - GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.

a) Defendant's response to the subject request is deficient, entitling Plaintiff to a further response thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.310(a).) Admissibility at trial is not the test for discoverability. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the sought-after materials may be relevant or admissible on Plaintiff's FEHA claims, and Defendant's objections and unilaterally imposed time parameters are not well-taken. Specifically, the Court notes that Defendant's arguments against providing the subject information rely primarily on persuasive authorities, which fail to address the issue in the context of discovery. (However, Plaintiff's claim that unpublished federal cases may not be cited in California courts is not well-taken.)

The Court makes no express or implied findings on admissibility at trial. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the alternative request for summary adjudication.

b) Summary judgment is DENIED. Summary Adjudication is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

FACTUAL SUMMARY Plaintiff operated a personal interior design/property business while working for Kaiser. Company assets were used by her in doing so. She also complained about a monkey image which she alleged was racist and reported it to human resources. While out on medical leave, she was fired. She claims the firing was pretextual.

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS A. Summary Judgment or Adjudication in General A "party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . ." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) "A prima facie showing is one sufficient to support the position of the party in question." (Id. at p. 851.) A defendant meets their burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party shows that "one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that "a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." (Ibid.) "Because of the drastic nature of the summary judgment procedure and the importance of safeguarding the adverse party's right to a trial, the moving party must make a strong showing. His affidavits are strictly construed and the opposing party's are liberally construed." (Garcia v.

World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1038.) All doubts as to whether any material, triable issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment or adjudication. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 562.) Thus, evidence that is equivocal or from which conflicting inferences may be drawn is insufficient to meet the