SHANNON VS DHSE, INC.

Special interrogatories nos. 16 and 17 seek the last known address of Rene Liebling and all addresses Rene Liebling had while employed with Defendant. In response to both special interrogatories, Defendant objects on the grounds of privacy. It responds by stating “Rene Liebling is not employed by responding party and is not a party. Her employment files are privileged as described.” Ms. Liebling is alleged to be Defendant’s human resources manager. Plaintiff correctly argues that Ms. Liebling’s address, as a percipient witness, is discoverable. (Puerto v.

Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1259.) “[I]t is only under unusual circumstances that the courts restrict discovery of nonparty witnesses’ residential contact information. (Id. at 1254.) No pressing need as to why this information should be withheld has been provided. As such, the objections on the grounds of privacy lack merit. Defendant’s statement in response to special interrogatory 16 that Ms. Liebling is not employed by Defendant is not responsive to the request. This request simply asks Defendant to identify Ms.

Liebling’s last known address. Unlike special interrogatory no. 17, special interrogatory no. 16 is not tied to Ms. Liebling’s employment with Defendant. As such, even if Defendant contends that it did not employ Ms. Liebling, it is required to answer the special interrogatory, if it has said information.

Special interrogatory 17 is tied to Ms. Liebling’s employment with Defendant. However, Defendant’s response appears to be contradictory. It indicates Ms. Liebling is not employed by Defendant and then goes on to assert that her employment files are privilege. It is unclear based on this response whether she was employed or not. Due to this confusion, the motion is granted as to both interrogatories. If Ms. Liebling is not an employee, Defendant can indicate that it does not have said information because she has never been employed. However, if she has been employed, it needs to provide a response to said request.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions. Under CCP §§ 2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h), sanctions must be awarded against the losing party, unless the court finds that doing so would be unjust or the losing party acted with substantial justification.

While it is clear that Defendant does not believe it is a proper party to this lawsuit, a plaintiff is not required to prove her claims in order to be entitled to discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550.) A party is allowed to obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged and relevant to the lawsuit. (CCP § 2017.010.) As such, Plaintiff was entitled to the discovery sought. Defendant’s responses were insufficient. It fails to identify any reason that would make imposing sanctions unjust and its actions do not appear to be substantially justified. As such, sanctions are awarded. The amount of sanctions sought by Plaintiff appears excessive. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,260.00 (3 hours x $400 + $60) (SEPARATE AND APART FROM SANCTIONS ON PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS) payable to Plaintiff within 30 days of this order becoming final.

8. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL BY WELSH VS VOLKSWAGEN CVPS2507164 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. INC. Tentative Ruling: Granted.

No opposition filed.

Request for Admissions Set One, Nos. 1-27 are deemed admitted, unless verified responses are served prior to the hearing date of June 2, 2026. However, in either instance, sanctions are