Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responses to Request for Form Interrogatories-Employment
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 08/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responses to Request for Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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?”
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 Courts 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
24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 08/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responses to Request for Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Shelby Greenhills motion to compel Defendant Country Club Cinema, LLCs further response to form interrogatories-employment is granted.
At issue on this motion is Defendants response to Plaintiffs form interrogatory-employment, nos. 201.4-201.6, 211.1, and 217.1. Plaintiff contends that Defendants responses are insufficient.
On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that [...] [a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete ..[or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300(a)(1), (3).
With respect to form interrogatories-employment nos. 201.4-201.6 and 211.1, Defendant simply argues that the motion should be denied because it proposed amended answers which addressed Plaintiffs concerns raised in the meet-and-confer process. However, as noted in Plaintiffs counsels March 24, 2025, letter, the proposed amended responses only resolved some of the issues but not all. (Decl. Exh. G.) As a result, and because Defendant raises no substantive argument in opposition to the motion directed to these interrogatories, the motion is granted.
As to form interrogatory-employment no. 217.1, Defendant contends that the information sought violates the right to privacy of its employees. This interrogatory asked for the facts, witnesses and documents supporting each response to Plaintiffs concurrently served requests for admission that was not an unqualified response. Defendant contends that it objected to Plaintiffs request for admission no. 3 which asked Defendant to admit that it hired a pedophile as an usher and thus is not required to provide and facts, witnesses or documents supporting any denial because it did not deny the request. However, as seen in the Courts ruling on Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions, the Court has overruled Defendants privacy objection to request for admission no.
3. Thus, any privacy objection to this from interrogatory is overruled for the same reasons stated in the Courts ruling on Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions. To the extent that Defendant serves a further response which denies request for admission no. 3, it must provide a further response to this interrogatory as well which identifies the facts, witnesses and documents supporting the denial. As noted in Plaintiffs moving papers, Defendant need not name the specific individual. Defendants opposition raises no other argument regarding form interrogatory-employment no.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 08/19/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Country Club Cinema, LLC to Provide Further Amended Responses to Request for Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One in Department 53
217.1 other than the one raised in connection with request for admission no.
3.
The motion is granted.
No later than September 2, 2025, Defendant shall serve further verified responses to Plaintiffs form interrogatories-employment nos. 201.4-201.6, 211.1, and 217.1 as requested in the moving papers.
No sanctions were requested and none are awarded.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.