PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

24CV011057: PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Samuel Peterson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant RL Liquidators, LLC. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set one, under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 and request for monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(d) and 2023.010-2023.040 are ruled on as follows.

This is an action for claims of wrongful constructive termination, discrimination based on sex/gender and disability, sexual harassment, failure to accommodate, retaliation for engaging in protected activities, and other violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Labor Code, and public policy by Defendant while Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant.

Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on September 4, 2024. (Declaration of Rene Potter, (“Potter Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Defendant responded on October 22, 2024, after an extension was granted. (Id., ¶ 3.) Between December 6, 2024 and January 28, 2025, the parties exchanged various meetand-confer correspondence but were unable to resolve the dispute. (Id., ¶ 6, Exhibit 2.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to special interrogatory nos. 17, 42-48, 64, 69, 97, and 102. Plaintiff also seeks to strike Defendant’s general objections from Defendant’s initial responses and an order directing Defendant to refrain from making general objections in its amended/supplemental responses. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 2:16-18.)

Legal Standard “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, 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.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011057: PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53

speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [Citations omitted.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

As applied to interrogatories, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(a) authorizes a motion to compel further responses where the responses to the underlying interrogatories are “evasive or incomplete” and/or includes an objection which is “without merit or too general.” Notably, unlike a motion to compel further responses to requests for production (such as Plaintiff’s companion motion on this calendar), the moving party does not bear a threshold showing of “good cause” for propounding an interrogatory. The Court assesses whether the responding party has satisfied its burden to justify its objections and the propounding party’s response thereto.

Discussion

Interrogatory No. 17 requests detailed descriptions of “every complaint that Plaintiff made to you during his employment.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 2:20-22 [emphasis added].) Defendant simply responds, “Plaintiff never submitted a complaint about his employment.” Defendant raised no objection. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the qualifying language “about his employment” is vague, ambiguous and nonresponsive to the interrogatory. Plaintiff seeks detailed descriptions of all complaints made by Plaintiff during his employment, not just complaints “about his employment” to whatever extent the scope of that phrase is understood by Defendant. Further response by Defendant is required.

Interrogatories No. 42-48 seeks all facts upon which Defendant bases its contention that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff’s disability; did not fail to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability; did not retaliate against Plaintiff for requesting an accommodation, for making complaints about unsafe working conditions, or in any manner; did not fail to prevent harassment, and did not fail to prevent retaliation at any time.

Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 42 on the grounds that it is an impermissible compound request, that it is overbroad, harassing, unduly burdensome, and requires Defendant to “prove a negative.” Defendant responds that Defendant did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011057: PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53

“any and all adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons, including various work-related deficiencies by Plaintiff, such as Plaintiff failing to meet daily quotas and failing to properly record a meal period that was permitted an [sic] authorized.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 4:15-17.) “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant confirms their contention that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and provides facts upon which Defendant bases the contention. No further response is required to Interrogatory No.

42.

Defendant makes the same objections to Interrogatory No. 43. “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant states Plaintiff never informed Defendant of a need for reasonable accommodation and that Defendant was never informed of Plaintiff being disabled in any capacity. (Id., 7:19-21.) Defendant’s response does not confirm a contention that it did or did not fail to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability, or provide the facts supporting that contention; it merely asserts that Plaintiff did not inform Defendant of a disability or need for an accommodation.

Importantly here, a failure to accommodate can still occur absent Plaintiff’s express notification if a disability is “known.” (See, e.g. Prillman v. United Airlines, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935, 950, 953-54 [employer aware of employee's disability has affirmative duty to help find an alternate position if employee does not request it]; Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 61 n.20, 22 ['known' disability means disability of which employer is aware because it is obvious, has been brought to its attention or based on employer's own perception, mistaken or not, and obligation arises once employer is aware of need to consider accommodation].)

Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff did not inform Defendant of a disability or need for accommodation, but is silent on whether a disability was known. A failure to accommodate could have occurred, and Defendant is silent on whether that is the contention made, and is silent on the facts for that basis. Thus, a further response is required to Interrogatory No.

43.

Defendant makes the same objections to Interrogatory No. 44. “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant responds again that Defendant did not retaliate against Plaintiff, and that “any and all adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons, including various work-related deficiencies by Plaintiff, such as Plaintiff failing to meet daily quotas and failing to properly record a meal period that was permitted an [sic] authorized.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 8:14-17.) “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant confirms their contention that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and provides facts upon which Defendant bases the contention. No further response is required to Interrogatory No.

44.

Defendant makes the same objections to Interrogatory No. 45. “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant responds again that Defendant did not retaliate against Plaintiff, and that “any and all adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011057: PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53

including various work-related deficiencies by Plaintiff, such as Plaintiff failing to meet daily quotas and failing to properly record a meal period that was permitted an [sic] authorized.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 9:14-17.) “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant confirms their contention that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and provides facts upon which Defendant bases the contention. No further response is required to Interrogatory No.

45.

Defendant makes the same objections to Interrogatory No. 46. “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant responds again that Defendant did not retaliate against Plaintiff, and that “any and all adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons, including various work-related deficiencies by Plaintiff, such as Plaintiff failing to meet daily quotas and failing to properly record a meal period that was permitted an [sic] authorized.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 8:13-16.) “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant confirms their contention that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and provides facts upon which Defendant bases the contention. No further response is required to Interrogatory No.

46.

Defendant makes the same objections to Interrogatory No. 47. “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant states Defendant was never informed of Plaintiff’s “purported” harassment. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 11:9.) Defendant’s response does not confirm a contention that it did or did not fail to prevent Plaintiff’s alleged harassment, or provide the facts supporting that contention; again, it merely asserts that Defendant lacked knowledge of Plaintiff’s alleged harassment. A failure to prevent harassment can still occur absent knowledge of the harassment. (Gov.

Code, § 12940(j)(1) [Harassment shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. (Emphasis added.).].) An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. (Id.) Defendant acknowledges that it was never informed of Plaintiff’s alleged harassment, but is silent on how a lack of knowledge of harassment establishes that there was no failure to prevent harassment.

Thus, a further response is required to Interrogatory No.

47.

Defendant makes the same objections to Interrogatory No. 48. “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant responds again that Defendant did not fail to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff, and that “any and all adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons, including various work-related deficiencies by Plaintiff, such as Plaintiff failing to meet daily quotas and failing to properly record a meal period that was permitted an [sic] authorized.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 12:4-7.) “Subject to and without waiving said objections,” Defendant confirms their contention that it did not discriminate against Plaintiff, and provides facts upon which Defendant bases the contention. No further response is required to Interrogatory No.

48.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011057: PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53

Interrogatory No. 64 requests the names and addresses of any businesses owned by Defendant in addition to Plaintiff’s address of employment. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 12:19-20.) Defendant simply responds, “Plaintiff only worked at the Fresno location (4425 Ashlan Ave., Fresno, CA 93726).” Defendant raised no objection. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant’s response is vague and nonresponsive to the interrogatory, and is not justified by any objection. Plaintiff seeks names and locations of business of which Defendant did not address in its response. Thus, a further response is required to Interrogatory No.

64.

Interrogatory No. 69 asks whether Defendant “had a POLICY/PROCEDURE regarding the distribution of tasks involving oversized items/pallets among YOUR EMPLOYEES during ALL RELEVANT TIMES.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 13:18-19.) Instead of affirming or denying, Defendant responds, “Defendant required employees to process 100 oversized lots in one day. This goal was not unattainable.” (Id., at 13:25-26.) The response does not address whether this was a policy or procedure, or whether the response is the entirety of any policy/procedure they may have had. Thus, further response is required to Interrogatory No.

69.

Interrogatory No. 97 requests Defendant to “IDENTIFY all FACTS which evidence, support, or dispute anything contained in the Factual Allegations of PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT.” (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 14:9-10.) Defendant offers the same objections as found in Interrogatory 17, including that the interrogatory is “overbroad in time and scope.” The Court sustains the objection insofar as this interrogatory is overbroad. Interrogatory No. 97 purports to ask Defendant to respond regarding a section of Plaintiff’s complaint, entitled “Factual Allegations,” which as far as the Court can ascertain, is paragraphs 11 through 113 of the complaint. A single interrogatory that seeks all facts which “evidence, support or dispute anything” contained in over 100 paragraphs of allegations is vastly overbroad. Thus, no further response is required to Interrogatory No.

97.

Interrogatory No. 102 seeks all facts upon which Defendant bases its contention that it did not fail to pay all wages due and payable to Plaintiff after his resignation. Defendant responds, “Plaintiff was paid all wages due.” While the response affirms the contention raised in the interrogatory, it does not support the contention with facts as requested in the interrogatory as required. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.220(a)-(b).) For instance, if Defendant believes that Plaintiff was paid all wages due, it presumably knows of facts that were relevant in determining the actual amount that Plaintiff was paid. Such facts, as well as any others used to support Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff was paid the correct amount, as opposed to an incorrect amount, are lacking from Defendant’s response. Thus, further response is required to Interrogatory No. 102.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011057: PETERSON vs RL LIQUIDATORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53

Disposition The motion is granted as set forth above. Where further responses are required and have not yet been provided (without objections overruled above), Defendant shall provide such responses no later than October 9, 2025.

The Court finds that the motion and opposition were each made, in part, with substantial justification and that imposition of sanctions in this instance would be unjust.

This minute order is effective immediately. [No formal order or other notice is required.] (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)