Hall, Chantelle v. City of Chico

Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, July 29, 2026 @ 9:00 AM

1. 21CV03075 Hall, Chantelle v. City of Chico

EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from the City of Chico (Continued from 6/24/26)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from the City of Chico is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.

Nos. 1,3,5,7,9,10,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,28,29,31,33,35,37,39 The motion is denied. It has been this Court’s policy not to address the merits of objections provided the substantive response is complete and the responding party is not withholding information based on objection. In this Court’s view, it is a futile exercise at the discovery stage to address objections in that context. If the responding party is serious about a particular objection to a particular request they can file a motion in limine if the case gets to that point. Here, Plaintiff indicates in her separate statement that she is not challenging the substantive response. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Nos. 2,4,6,8,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,30,32,34,36,38,40 The motion is granted. The substantive response is deficient. Requesting the identity of witnesses who will testify to support a party’s particular contention is a basic and routine discovery request. Defendant’s position that Plaintiff should engage in a particular form of discovery, i.e. a PMK deposition is without merit. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402 [unless restricted by the trial court, [parties] are free to utilize any of the prescribed discovery methods during the action in any sequence])

To the extent the motion is granted, Defendant shall provide further responses within 20 days’ notice of this order. Plaintiff shall prepare the order within two weeks.

1