Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV08069, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08069    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion To Compel Further [sic] Responses, Without Objections, To Form Interrogatories-General (Set One); Form Interrogatories-Employment Law (Set One); Request For Production Of Documents (Set One); And Request For Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant UTR Management, LLC In The Sum Of $1,125.00.

BACKGROUND

DANIELLE GREENLIN (“Plaintiff”) filed this wage and hour and FEHA case against UTR MANAGEMENT, LLC and ICE KREAM, LLC.  

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an order compelling Defendant UTR MANAGEMENT, LLC (“Defendant”) to serve initial (not further) verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Form Interrogatories-Employment Law, and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and awarding monetary sanctions against Defendants in the sum of $1,125.00. Defendant did not file an opposition to the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (compelling initial interrogatory responses),  2031.300 (compelling initial document requests).

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.

“If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s evidence sufficiently shows that Defendant failed to serve responses to properly served discovery requests. See Declaration of Douglas H. Hoang, ¶¶ 3-6. Additionally, Defendant filed no opposition in order to show substantial justification in avoidance of monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the unopposed motion. Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), Form Interrogatories-Employment Law, and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 14 days of notice of this ruling. Defendant shall also pay $1,125.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff by that same date.