17-CIV-04915 ANA MONTALVAN VS. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC., ET AL.
ANA MONTALVAN EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC
PARVEEN TUMBER THEODORA R. LEE
MOTION TO COMPEL TENTATIVE RULING:
A. Form Interrogatories.
The motion is moot. Plaintiff served supplemental responses on August 21, 2018
B. Document Requests
1. Request Number 6.
Request Number 6 fails to “specifically describe” any individual item or “reasonably particularize” a category of items. (See Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.030, subd. (c)(1).) The request, omitting the parenthetical description of electronic locations, reads “all documents that support, refute, refer to, or relate to your claims . . . .” The category is so broad that it encompasses every other possible request for electronic documents. Plaintiff’s objection for overbreadth normally would be sustained.
However, since Plaintiff states that she has produced all responsive documents, she has abandoned the objection. Plaintiff’s contention that she produced all documents is inapposite because the motion seeks a further written response, not a production of documents. The motion is granted. Plaintiff shall supplement her written response to state that she will comply with the request.
2. Request Number 9. a. Tax Returns.
The motion is denied as to tax returns and related documents. The document request does not ask for tax returns, nor are tax returns reasonably encompassed in the request, which is for documents relating to “claims or applications” for unemployment, worker’s compensation, and social security benefits. Defendant offers no showing that tax returns would have been part of “claims or applications” for benefits.
Further, Defendant’s arguments for an exception to the taxpayer privilege lack merit. The case of Newson v. City of Oakland, pertained to answering a question merely about whether Plaintiff had filed tax returns, not the contents of them. In the Schnabel case, the corporation’s taxpayer’s privilege was outweighed by the public policy of enforcing spousal rights in a marital dissolution. Also, the spouse seeking the returns held partial ownership in the corporation. No such facts are present here.
Finally, Plaintiff’s income from other sources can be discovered without the tax returns.
b. Disability, Unemployment, and Social Security.
The motion is granted as to the EDD-related documents. Whatever objections Plaintiff had asserted are abandoned, since she contends that she complied with the request. Plaintiff must amend her written response to state that she will comply with the request for EDD records.
3. Request Numbers 11 and 15 The motion is granted. Whatever objections Plaintiff asserted are now abandoned, since she contends that she complied with the request. Plaintiff must amend her written response to state that she will comply with the request. C. Sanctions
The request for sanctions is denied.
“The notice of motion shall be . . . accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.) Defendant’s motion fails to comply with this requirement. The declaration accompanying the Notice of Motion states only, “My firm has spent a total of $4,500 to prepare and file this motion” and no facts to support that conclusion. (Decl. Kuzma ¶ 11.)
Defendant’s attempt to address the defect with a Reply Declaration is ineffective. Section 2023.040 does not provide that a moving party may wait until the Reply papers before submitting the declaration that was to accompany the Notice of Motion. Further, the supplemental declaration lacks even minimal detail about what work was performed to justify ten hours by attorney Kuzma or the two hours by attorney Lee.
In addition, Plaintiffs’ objections to Document Category 6 and part of Category 9 had merit. The motion was granted as to those categories only because Plaintiff later waived the objections by producing all documents.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.