Motion to Compel Further Responses and for Monetary Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV-06687 Rebecca Muro vs Wendy’s of the Pacific, Inc.
Motion to Compel Further Responses and for Monetary Sanctions
Previously continued from June 26, 2026, to allow for further meet and confer.
Per the Declaration of Robert Meehan, filed July 10, 2026, the parties were able to meet and confer and resolve many of the disputed responses.
The following discovery remains in dispute:
1. FI-G Nos. 12.2 and 12.3; 2. FI-E Nos. 215.1 and 215.2; and 3. RFP No. 77.
(Meehan Decl. ¶ 5, 3:8-12.)
Form Interrogatories – General, Set One
The court’s ruling on the request to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, No. 12.2 is RESERVED, subject to an in camera hearing.
Here there is a dispute as to whether the potential list of witnesses is finite or numerous thus indicating attorney work product. Plaintiff claims that the list is finite and provides the names of five (5) individuals they believe might be witnesses. Defendant claims that the list is numerous and if the information is provided it would reveal counsel’s impressions, conclusion, opinions, or legal research or theories. To support this argument Defendant states that there are numerous employees, managers, or other witnesses that may have provided information.
Defendant has made a preliminary showing that the answering the interrogatory would reveal counsel’s impressions, conclusion, opinions, or legal research or theories. (See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 502 [“Upon such a showing, the trial court should then determine, by making an in camera inspection if necessary, whether absolute or qualified work product protection applies to the material in dispute.”]
In this instance, to resolve the issue regarding the work product privilege an in camera inspection is required.
The issue before the court is how many witnesses existed and were disclosed, how many were interviewed, and whether the fact less than all were interviewed constitutes work product. Thus, the issue to be determined in camera is the number that could be interviewed and the exercise of counsel’s strategic decisions in selecting those to interview versus those that were not interviewed for reasons such as convenience or unavailability. If the selection was for a strategic reason that would be work product.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The in camera hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8.
The court’s ruling on the request to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, No. 12.3 is RESERVED, subject to an in camera hearing.
The issue before the court is how many witnesses existed and were disclosed, the exercise of counsel’s strategic decisions in identifying and selecting those from which to obtain statements, how many provided statements, and if the statements were obtained as a result of the attorney’s efforts or whether the statements were independently prepared by the witness and subsequently obtained by the attorney. If the selection was for a strategic reason and the statement was obtained by the attorney that would be work product.
The in camera hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8.
Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One
The court’s ruling on the request to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, No. 215.1 is RESERVED, subject to an in camera hearing.
The issue before the court is how many witnesses existed and were disclosed, how many were interviewed, and whether the fact less than all were interviewed constitutes work product. Thus, the issue to be determined in camera is the number that could be interviewed and the exercise of counsel’s strategic decisions in selecting those to interview versus those that were not interviewed for such things as convenience or unavailability. If the selection was for a strategic reason that would be work product.
The in camera hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8.
The court’s ruling on the request to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, No. 215.2 is RESERVED, subject to an in camera hearing.
The issue before the court is how many witnesses existed and were disclosed, the exercise of counsel’s strategic decisions in identifying and selecting those from which to obtain statements, how many provided statements, and if the statements were obtained as a result of the attorney’s efforts or whether the statements were independently prepared by the witness and subsequently obtained by the attorney. If the selection was for a strategic reason and the statement was obtained by the attorney that would be work product.
The in camera hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8.
Request for Production of Documents, Set One
The motion to compel a further response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 77, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(4) states that the separate statement shall include “If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it.”
Here, the requested documents are based on a special definition for the term “DOCUMENT RELATED.” The separate statement does not include the special definition. That definition is required for this court to determine if Defendant’s objections should be sustained or overruled. Nor does Plaintiff state whether Defendant provided a privilege
log for the objections based on privilege for which the claim of privilege can be initially evaluated.
As Defendant was justified in opposing Plaintiff’s motion, the request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.