Obregon v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
67 Cal. App. 4th 424, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 62 (1998)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Jovita Obregon (plaintiff) worked at a Burger King franchise owned and operated by Cimm’s, Inc. (Cimm’s) (defendant). Obregon sued Cimm’s for sexual harassment. Obregon served interrogatories on Cimm’s that were very broad and not all clearly related to the case issues. The responses from Cimm’s included a mixture of factual answers and objections. Thirteen days before Obregon’s deadline to file a motion to compel for these interrogatories, Obregon sent a letter to Cimm’s requesting further responses. Four days before Obregon’s motion deadline, Cimm’s responded with a letter that generally asserted the same objections. However, in the letter, Cimm’s also offered alternative solutions to resolve the disputed issues. Obregon received the response one day before her motion deadline. Obregon then moved to compel without further communicating with Cimm’s. Cimm’s objected that Obregon had failed to make a reasonable and good-faith attempt at informal resolution before filing the motion to compel. The trial court agreed with Cimm’s, denied the motion to compel, and imposed sanctions on Obregon.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zebrowski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.