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

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

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 Form Interrogatories - Employment 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 form 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., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibit 2.)

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to form interrogatory nos. 211.1-211.3. 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, 2:19-21.)

Defendant objects to each form interrogatory as follows: “Defendant objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is premature pursuant to Instruction 2(d) of the Form Interrogatories- Employment, which states that the “interrogatories in section 211.0 should not be used until the employer has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of the employee’s injuries or damages.”

According to the opposition, defendants served on 8/19/2025 “supplemental” responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories and on this ground, the opposition insists the present motion to compel is now “moot.” as to form interrogatories “211.1 and 211.2” (Defendant’s Opposition, 3:3, 6.) Defendant continues to argue that the objection found in response to interrogatory “211.2” (i.e., repeating the same number as one of the interrogatories addressed in the supplemental response) is valid because it has not had opportunity to complete the necessary discovery to respond to the request. Defendant is entirely silent in addressing interrogatory 211.3.

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 Form Interrogatories - Employment in Department 53

To the extent that Defendant’s opposition misstates which form interrogatories are purportedly rendered moot, (compare Defendant’s Opposition, 3:3, 6 against 4:14), the Court will not presume which form interrogatories were supplemented with additional response and which are purportedly rendered moot. More importantly, such differentiation is irrelevant because the Court rejects defendants’ suggestion that this motion has been rendered “moot” by virtue of their service of “supplemental” responses on 8/19/2025, regardless of which interrogatories were responded to in that supplemental response.

Code of Civil Procedure §1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served and here, plaintiffs filed the present motion back on 5/8/2025 while the “supplemental” responses were not actually served until just a few weeks ago on 8/19/2025, over three months after this motion was filed back on 5/8/2025. Consequently, this motion cannot be considered “moot” within the meaning of §1005.5.

Other than its assertion of mootness, Defendant does not present any justification in its opposition why it should not be ordered to further respond to the interrogatories that it has recently addressed by supplemental response (again, which Defendant identifies in its opposition as interrogatory “211.1 and 211.2”). Further, the Court overrules Defendant’s objection discussed in its opposition that interrogatory “211.2” cannot or should not be responded to at this time. Therefore, the Court will here compel defendants to provide further responses, without additional objections, to each of the interrogatories at issue, plaintiffs’ interrogatories 211.1 through 211.3. (To the extent defendants have already provided verified further responses to some of these interrogatories without additional objections, they need not re-serve the further responses in order to comply with this ruling.)

To the extent moving plaintiffs may contend Defendant’s further responses to interrogatories 211.1-211.3 are deficient for any reason, plaintiffs may file and serve an appropriate motion only after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process.

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.)

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 Form Interrogatories - Employment in Department 53