## Facts

- Jovita Obregon, an employee of a Burger King franchise operated by Cimm’s, Inc., sued Cimm’s and her former supervisor for sexual harassment and related claims; the supervisor defaulted.
- Obregon served form and special interrogatories on Cimm’s; Cimm’s responded with a mix of answers and objections.
- Obregon waited more than five weeks after receiving the responses before sending a letter seeking further responses, with about 13 days remaining before the statutory deadline to move to compel further responses.
- Cimm’s replied nine days later, largely repeating its objections; Obregon received that reply one day before the motion deadline.
- Obregon filed a motion to compel further responses without additional meet-and-confer efforts after receiving Cimm’s reply.
- The trial court denied the motion for failure to make a reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution and imposed sanctions on Obregon.
- Obregon sought writ relief challenging the denial and sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether Obregon’s pre-motion efforts satisfied the statutory requirement of a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution” before moving to compel further interrogatory responses.
2. Whether denying the motion to compel and imposing sanctions was a proper exercise of discretion, given policies favoring liberal discovery and proportionate remedies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Obregon’s meet-and-confer efforts inadequate under the governing discovery statute.
- The court emphasized, however, that trial courts should carefully evaluate whether outright denial of discovery and the severity of sanctions are appropriate, and should consider less severe measures where feasible.
- Writ relief was denied.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to compel further interrogatory responses must be supported by a declaration showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt to resolve each disputed issue informally.
- A single, late, largely perfunctory communication—especially with no follow-up addressing specific disputes—may be found insufficient to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to assess meet-and-confer adequacy and to manage discovery; such rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Although discovery is liberal, courts may require genuine efforts to narrow disputes and may consider the breadth and relevance of the requests in evaluating discovery conduct.
- Denial of discovery is a severe remedy; sanctions and remedies for meet-and-confer failures should be calibrated to the misconduct and should not reflexively foreclose discovery when less severe alternatives can address the problem.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s determination that Obregon failed to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve interrogatory disputes informally before moving to compel, while warning that denying discovery and imposing substantial sanctions should be reserved for more serious discovery misconduct and should be applied proportionately.


Obregon v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 62 (Ct. App. 1998)