Ambrosio Villagrana v. Beverly Bailey, et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMBROSIO VILLAGRANA, Case No. 22-cv-02618-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER 9 v. INTERROGATORY RESPONSES 10 BEVERLY BAILEY, et al., Re: ECF No. 103 Defendant.

13 In this action, Plaintiff Ambrosio Villagrana alleges that he was injured due to the Defendant Stronghold Engineering’s negligence in executing a certain construction project (“the Project”). See ECF No. 89. Before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter brief. ECF No. 103. This discovery dispute arises from Defendant’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2.

17 Id. at 1. Plaintiff argues that those responses were incomplete and seeks to compel Defendant to provide complete responses. Id. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 seek information directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter and are within the proper scope of discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

21 Interrogatory No. 1 asks for an identification and description of any safety procedures issued by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health that Defendant implemented during the Project. ECF No. 103 at 4. Interrogatory No. 2 asks for an identification and description of any safety procedures issued by the California Department of Public Health that the Defendant implemented during the Project. ECF No. 103 at 5. In response to both interrogatories, Defendant asserted several objections and privileges and then stated only that “Responding Party complied with all applicable federal and state requirements, including those set forth by the website and the California Code of Regulations. /d.

2 The blanket assertion that Defendant has complied with applicable regulations is not responsive to the interrogatories. Not every regulatory safety procedure may be relevant to the || Project, and Defendant’s responses fail to identify which safety procedures were actually implemented during the Project. See ECF No. 103 at 2.

6 The inquiry concerning safety procedures implemented during the Project is clearly || relevant to Defendant’s liability for negligence for Plaintiffs alleged injuries. See Roberts v. Trans World Airlines, 225 Cal. App. 2d 344, 357 (Ct. App. 1964) (“Compliance with a safety standard fixed by law or administrative regulation is a fact which a jury may weigh in determining || the issue of care.”). The request is also not overly burdensome, as it is knowledge within 11 Defendant’s immediate control as the party that in fact implemented the safety measures Plaintiff 12 seeks to identify.

5 13 Defendant argue that its response was sufficient and that Plaintiff's requests are overbroad.

14 ECF No. 103 at 2. It cites, for its refusal to answer, the fact that “Plaintiff has not identified any 15 legal authority as to why these responses are insufficient as phrased.” Jd. But as the Court has a 16 || explained, Defendant’s responses were not sufficient, Plaintiff's requests were not overbroad, and 17 Defendant’s obligation to comply with its discovery obligations is not lessened or altered because || Plaintiff did not provide additional “legal authority” in support of Defendant’s obligation to || provide complete interrogatory responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

20 Finally, defense counsel appears to concede that she refused to meet and confer concerning 21 this dispute on a telephone or video call and that she “refused to speak unless a detailed || description citing legal authority was provided in advance,” instead “insisting that any issues 23 could be resolved by email.” ECF No. 103 at 1. The Court concludes that defense counsel’s 24 apparent refusal to meet and confer supports its decision to order further interrogatory responses.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: January 12, 2026 .

27 JON S. TIGA 28 nited States District Judge