BARRY vs YAO, et al.

The court is not satisfied with the documented attempts to confer. Given that the parties were prepared to argue Plaintiff’s five discovery motions today, they are in an excellent position to 25CV117381: BARRY vs YAO, et al. 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Augustine Barry (Plaintiff) CRS# 523685789789 in Department 18 meet and confer on the issues. The court offers general guidance below to aid the discussion.

The hearing will be continued to June 24, 2026 at 1:30 pm, and the parties must file a joint discovery brief identifying each unresolved issue and providing each party’s final proposed compromise. The discovery brief may not exceed 10 pages total and should not repeat the contents of the motion papers. The parties must cooperate in drafting the brief so that each side has adequate time to address the other’s position. The brief is due by June 12, 2026. If the parties feel their discovery disputes warrant more time and attention than the court has to offer, they are encouraged to consider engaging a discovery referee.

The parties recently stipulated to mediate by November 30, 2026 and extend the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion for class certification until July 30, 2027. The court intends to hold to those dates.

GENERAL GUIDANCE

Plaintiff served too many requests. Plaintiff has moved to compel further responses to almost 200 individual requests after serving far more. The court cannot conceive of a need for even 200 requests in a misclassification case without any apparent extenuating circumstances. The 236 individual requests for production appear particularly problematic. “When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden.” (Obregon v. Superior Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

General objections “are, of course, ineffective.” (Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool L. Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 902, 908.) Objections must be clear and specific. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.240 (interrogatories); § 2031.240 (inspection demands); § 2033.230 (requests for admission).) Objections must also be substantially justified. (Clement, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287 [affirming award of sanctions where an objection to the term “economic damages” as “ambiguous” was without substantial justification and rendered responses evasive].) Defendant bears the burden of justifying any objections or failures to respond. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

Objections to form interrogatories must be especially precise, given that the Judicial Council has already approved and encouraged use of the forms. The court often finds the term “incident,” however, ambiguous. The DISC-001 Form gives a requesting party the option to define incident as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” The form appears to be designed for contract or tort actions and is not well-suited to all cases. Similarly, the form for employment interrogatories seems ill-suited to this case. It defines “employment” to exclude an independent contractor relationship, which Plaintiff well knows is how Defendant characterizes the relationships at issue in this case.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV117381: BARRY vs YAO, et al. 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Augustine Barry (Plaintiff) CRS# 523685789789 in Department 18 That the parties disagree on terminology is not surprising, given the nature of the action, and Plaintiff’s desire for a different answer is not a reason to compel one. For example, Plaintiff asked Defendant to admit that “Pareto’s Employment Agreement was governed by Delaware Law.” Defendant denied the request, stating “Defendant did not enter into an ‘Employment Agreement’ with Plaintiff. Defendant admits that it entered into an IC Agreement with Plaintiff, which was governed by Delaware law.” To the extent Plaintiff wanted answers to different questions, it could have asked them.

Some RFA denials appear inappropriate. Plaintiff, for example, asked Defendant to admit that it did not pay AI Trainers overtime or double time. Defendant denied these requests, explaining that overtime and double time were not owed because the AI Trainers were not employees. If Defendant is not claiming to have paid overtime or double time, the response should be an admission. Defendant is free to reasonably and clearly qualify any admission, but some denials are at odds with the explanations given.

A party asserting a privacy right “must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal. 5th at p. 552.)

A privilege log should accompany or follow shortly after a discovery response.

Argument is not a substitute for negotiation, and attempting informal resolution requires more than bickering with opposing counsel. (Clement, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294.)

The court is unlikely to award any sanctions on this record, particularly without evidence of substantive meet-and-confer efforts aimed at narrowing the issues and requests in dispute.