Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV18463, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18463    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal sues Defendants iBeauty Brands, Inc. (iBeauty Brands) and Does 1-10 pursuant to a June 6, 2022 Complaint alleging a single claim of (1) Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA).

The claim arises from allegations that, among other things, (1) Defendants have constructed, maintained, owned, monetized and/or operated a Website that is inaccessible to visually impaired individuals, such as Plaintiff, (2) Defendants have opted to maintain this Website in such an inaccessible form despite well-established and readily implementable industry guidelines for making websites accessible, (3) Defendants have failed to take action to correct and rectify these barriers even after being on notice of the discrimination that such barriers may create for visually impaired individuals, such as Plaintiff, and (4) Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violates various provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., where a violation of an individual’s rights under the ADA also constitutes a violation under the UCRA.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff served on iBeauty Brands (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (4) Requests for Admission, Set One.

That same day, Plaintiff served on Defendant a Notice of Taking Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified (PMQ)’s deposition. (Person Most Knowledgeable being the federal rather that state designation.)

On September 15, 2022, iBeauty Brands’ counsel sent objections to the Notice of Deposition, indicating that the deposition could not go forward on the date noticed but failing to provide alternative dates.

On September 26, 2022, iBeauty Brands’ counsel sent an e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsels, asking that discovery be paused so that the parties could explore settlement.

That same day, Plaintiff’s counsel responded that iBeauty Brands’ request was granted and that she was available for a call to further discuss settlement that week.

Settlement discussions were not fruitful, and no discovery responses were ever provided.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an e-mail to iBeauty Brands’ indicating that Plaintiff expected complete discovery responses to all the discovery propounded by no later than February 24, 2023.

That same day, in the same email, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff expected at least three confirmed deposition dates by no later than February 24, 2023.

On February 24, 2023, iBeauty Brands’ counsel responded that she was on maternity leave and had not seen the previous e-mail. iBeauty Brands’ counsel then requested another continuance of the discovery responses and did not provide any deposition dates as requested.

Following a telephonic conversation that took place the following week, iBeauty Brands was provided a further extension until April 3, 2023 to provide complete verified responses.

On April 3, 2023, Defendant served objections to every request in (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (4) Requests for Admission, Set One.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel asked iBeauty Brands’ counsel for iBeauty Brands to comply with its discovery obligations by providing verified complete responses by April 7, 2023.

That same day, Plaintiff also served a formal letter on iBeauty Brands, asking iBeauty Brands to, by April 7, 2023, provide three confirmed dates on which the PMQ deponent was available for a deposition in the next 90 days.

On April 11, 2023, iBeauty Brands’ counsel responded that she “just got back in town” and that she would review the letter and get back to Plaintiff in detail “by Friday.” iBeauty Brands’ counsel also indicated that if the parties do not reach an agreement, she suggest that an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) be scheduled.

As of June 23, 2023, however, iBeauty Brands had failed to supplement its discovery responses or provide deposition dates for its PMQ.

In response, that same day, Plaintiff made (1) a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, (2) a Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, (3) Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, and (4) a Motion for Order to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted and Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff also made a Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Defendant’s PMQ.

On July 7, 2023, iBeauty Brands opposed the compel initial discovery motions in three separate papers, one opposing supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, another opposing supplemental responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and the last opposing deeming Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted.

However, to date, iBeauty Brands has failed to oppose the motion to compel a deposition of its PMQ.

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff replied to the July 7, 2023 oppositions in a single paper addressing all three oppositions. Plaintiff separately noticed iBeauty Brands’ non-opposition to the motion to compel a deposition of its PMQ.

All five motions are now before the Court.

Preliminary Note

It is clear that where verified responses are received by the propounding party, to obtain supplemental responses, the propounding party must move to compel further rather than initial discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.310, subd. (c) [production], 2033.290, subd. (c) [admissions]; see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135-136.) A “response” within the meaning of these statutory sections appear to include objections to interrogatories and demands for production because the Discovery Act frames “objection[s]” as “responses” to these discovery devices. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3) [“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general”], 2031.310, subd. (a)(3) [“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that” “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general”], 2033.290, subd. (a)(2) [“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that” “[a]n objection to a particular request is without merit or too general”].) Thus, the Discovery Act appears to provide that where a request for responses to interrogatories, production demands, or request for admission involves only verified objections, to obtain supplemental discovery thereto, the propounding party must move to compel further responses.

In contrast, unsworn substantive responses to discovery necessitate only motions to compel initial discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a), 2031.250, subd. (a), 2033.240, subd. (a) [“The party to whom the [interrogatories, demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, or requests for admission] [is or are] directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections”]; see also Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].)

Similarly, if a response is hybrid—i.e., includes both substantive responses and objections to the demands—and is also unverified, the propounding party is entitled to an order compelling an initial verified response. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658; Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 135-136.)

However, critical to three motions before the Court—interrogatories and production—the law is unclear as to whether compelling discovery responses for which only unverified objections have been produced involves compelling initial or further discovery and, if the request involves compelling further discovery, whether the 45-day time window traditionally applied to compel further motions is applicable.

“As with any issue of statutory interpretation, ‘[w]e begin ... with the statute’s actual words, the “most reliable indicator” of legislative intent, “assigning them their usual and ordinary meanings, and construing them in context. If the words themselves are not ambiguous, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the statute’s plain meaning governs. On the other hand, if the language allows more than one reasonable construction, we may look to such aids as the legislative history of the measure and maxims of statutory construction. In cases of uncertain meaning, we may also consider the consequences of a particular interpretation, including its impact on public policy.” [Citation.]’” (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at pp. 135-136.)

The Discovery Act provides that a “party to whom the [interrogatories, demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, or requests for admission] [is or are] directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a), 2031.250, subd. (a), 2033.240, subd. (a).) The Act also provides that a motion to compel further discovery may be made when “[a]n objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a)(3), 2031.310, subd. (a)(3), 2033.290, subd. (a)(2).) Importantly, however, the 45-day time window to compel further responses to discovery appears to only be triggered when the response received to the initial discovery was verified. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c) [“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or [on or before] any specific later date to which the [propounding, demanding, or requesting] party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the [propounding, demanding, or requesting] party waives any right to compel [a] further response to the [interrogatories, demand, or requests for admission”].)

Accordingly, as a matter of seeming first impression, the Court determines that the most reasonable construction of the Discovery Act is that where a responding party initially serves only unverified objections to interrogatories, demands for production, or requests for admission, such objections are code-compliant insofar as they do not need to be verified, and that in order to obtain supplemental responses thereto, the propounding party must compel further responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a)(3), 2031.310, subdivision (a)(3), and 2033.290, subdivision (a)(2). However, the Court also determines that the most reasonable construction of the Discovery Act is that the 45-day time window to compel further responses contained in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (c), 2031.310, subdivision (c), and 2033.290, subdivision (c) is not applicable thereto. Otherwise stated, a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, demands for production, or requests for admission to which only unverified objections were served is not subject to the 45-day time window on other motions to compel further discovery.

Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses

I.

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403 [interrogatories and demands to produce].)

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit].)

II.

Order Compelling Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories: GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, from iBeauty Brands. (See FROGS Mot. and SROGS Mot. generally.) iBeauty Brands has only provided objections thereto. (See FROGS Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6; SROGS Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.)

Plaintiff argues that substantive responses are merited as to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One because (1) the responses thereto (objections only) are evasive and incomplete and (2) substantive responses thereto are necessary and relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. (FROGS Mot., pp. 7-10; SROGS Mot., pp. 8-11.)

In opposition, iBeauty Brands argues that iBeauty Brands properly responded with objections to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, making a motion to compel further responses the only permissible response thereto, but where the 45-day window to compel further responses thereto has expired, which is a jurisdictional bar to the relief sought by Plaintiff. (FROGS and SROGS Opp’n, pp. 3-6.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that (1) the 45-day window to compel further responses is only triggered where the responses to the initial discovery are verified, (2) boilerplate objections are tantamount to no objections, and (3) iBeauty Brands has, in essence, failed to provided responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Combined Reply, pp. 4-8, 8-9.)

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff Lawal.

Simply, the objections to the interrogatories are evasive despite involving requests within the scope of discovery. (See FROGS Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6; SROGS Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.) iBeauty Brands’ argument that further responses to these interrogatories are time barred is unavailing in light of the Court’s above Preliminary Note discussion. iBeauty Brands therefore does not provide proper arguments against compelling further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

The motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, are therefore GRANTED.

Given that the Court has granted these motions, the Court does not address the reply argument that boilerplate objections are tantamount to no objections.

III.

Sanctions: DENIED.

The court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Here, the Court finds it unjust to impose sanctions against iBeauty Brands based on the issues addressed by the Court in the Preliminary Note discussion above, i.e., the lack of clarity as to whether a motion to compel further must be made within the traditional 45-day window where the initial response involved only unverified objections.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is therefore DENIED.

For the same reasons, the Court DENIES iBeauty Brands sanctions request. (See FROGS and SROGS Opp’n, pp. 7-8.)

Motion to Compel Production Responses

I.

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

To request further production, a movant must establish: (1) good cause for the production (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Sinaiko, supra, at p. 403); and (2) that a further response is needed because (a) the responding party’s statement of compliance with the demand to produce is incomplete Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1)), (b) the responding party’s representation that it is unable to comply is inadequate, complete, or evasive (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(2)), (c) the responding party’s objection in the response is without merit or is too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3); Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127), or (d) if the responding party objected to the production of ESI on the ground that it is not reasonably accessible the movant can show that the (i) ESI is reasonably accessible or (ii) there is good cause for production of the ESI regardless of its accessibility (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (e)).

II.

Order Compelling Supplemental Responses to Production Requests: GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, from iBeauty Brands. (See RPDs Mot. generally.) iBeauty Brands has only provided objections thereto. (See RPDs Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.)

Plaintiff argues that substantive responses are merited as to Requests for Production, Set One because substantive responses thereto are necessary and relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. (RPDs Mot., pp. 5-7.)

In opposition, iBeauty Brands argues that iBeauty Brands properly responded with objections to Requests for Production, Set One, making a motion to compel further responses the only permissible response thereto, but where the 45-day window to compel further responses thereto has expired, which is a jurisdictional bar to the relief sought by Plaintiff. (RPDs Opp’n, pp. 3-7.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that (1) the 45-day window to compel further responses is only triggered where the responses to the initial discovery are verified, (2) boilerplate objections are tantamount to no objections, and (3) iBeauty Brands has, in essence, failed to provided responses to Requests for Production, Set One. (Combined Reply, pp. 4-8, 9-10.)

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff Lawal.

Simply, the objections to the requests for production are evasive despite involving requests within the scope of discovery. (See RPDs Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.) iBeauty Brands’ argument that further responses to production is time barred is unavailing in light of the Court’s above Preliminary Note discussion. iBeauty Brands therefore does not provide proper arguments against compelling further responses to Requests for Production, Set One.

The motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, is therefore GRANTED.

Given that the Court has granted this motion, the Court does not address the reply argument that boilerplate objections are tantamount to no objections.

III.

Sanctions: DENIED.

Except in certain circumstances involving electronic stored information, the court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Here, the Court finds it unjust to impose sanctions against iBeauty Brands based on the issues addressed by the Court in the Preliminary Note discussion above, i.e., the lack of clarity as to whether a motion to compel further must be made within the traditional 45-day window where the initial response involved only unverified objections.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is therefore DENIED.

For the same reasons, the Court DENIES iBeauty Brands sanctions request. (See RPDs Opp’n, p. 8.)

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

I.

Legal Standard

The discovering party can make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; see Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovery party must make the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

The motion may be based on several grounds, including that:

(1) The responding party served no response, (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b));

(2) The propounding party served a late response, (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b)); or

(3) The responding party served an unsworn response, (see Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response]).

II.

Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted: DENIED

Plaintiff moves to have Requests for Admission, Set One served on iBeauty Brands deemed admitted. (See RFAs Mot. generally.) iBeauty Brands has only provided objections thereto. (See RFAs Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.)

Plaintiff moves for this relief on the ground that iBeauty Brands’ refusal to provide verified responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, was without substantial justification and improper because (1) iBeauty Brands “has failed to comply with § 2033.240 as it has not provided written responses to the Requests for Admission ‘under oath,’” therefore waiving all objections to the requests for admission, (2) by responding to Plaintiff’s written discovery with boilerplate objections and failing to provide verified responses, and by completely ignoring Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer, Defendant has violated” Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivisions (c) to (h), (3) “[u]ntimely or unsworn statements are tantamount to no response at all under section 2033(a),” and (4) “Defendant’s responses to Requests for Admission, are untimely and nonresponsive.” (RFAs Mot., pp. 6-8.)

In opposition, iBeauty Brands argues that iBeauty Brands properly responded with objections to Requests for Production, Set One, making a motion to compel further responses the only permissible response thereto, but where the 45-day window to compel further responses thereto has expired, which is a jurisdictional bar to the relief sought by Plaintiff. (RFAs Opp’n, pp. 3-6.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that (1) the 45-day window to compel further responses is only triggered where the responses to the initial discovery are verified, (2) boilerplate objections are tantamount to no objections, and (3) the general objections to the requests for admission are not permitted by Code and thus amount to a failure to provide responses to Requests for Admission, Set One. (Combined Reply, pp. 4-8.)

Here, the Court finds for Defendants.

The Court first notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240 permits responding to requests for admission with unverified objections alone. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [“The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections,” emphasis added].) Here, iBeauty Brands provided unverified objections to Requests for Admission, Set One. (See RFAs Mot., Nouri Decl., Ex. 6.)

The Court next finds that a review of the authorities cited by Plaintiff in the reply at pages six to eight do not explicitly hold that boilerplate objections are disregarded. (See Combined Reply, pp. 6-8.)

The Court also finds that while the responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, were not timely made per the parties’ agreements, the fact that they are unsworn is permissible (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a)) and does not compel a conclusion that the objections thereto were no responses at all.

The Court last finds that even if the objections were boilerplate and lacking in merit, Plaintiff’s proper relief was to move to compel further responses thereto.

The Court thus DENIES this motion.

III.

Sanctions: DENIED.

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31-32; see e.g., Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 635-36 [sanctions are mandatory].)

Having failed to present adequate grounds for the relief sought, Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

The Court also DENIES iBeauty Brands sanctions request because the request was based on an incorrect interpretation of the compel further standard for unverified objections. (See RFAs Opp’n, pp. 7-8; see also Preliminary Note discussion supra.)

Motion to Compel Deposition of PMQ

Legal Standard

If, [1] after service of a deposition notice, [2] a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, [3] without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, [4] fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, [5] the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a) [Arabic numerals added for clarity].)

If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.230.)

The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

The motion shall also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

Order Compelling Deposition(s): GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of and production from iBeauty Brands’ PMQ. (See Deposition Mot. generally.)

iBeauty Brands has failed to oppose this motion, which Plaintiff has noticed for the Court. (See record generally; see also 7/13/23 Non-Opposition Notice.)

Plaintiff Lawal provides evidence to show that Plaintiff served a deposition notice on iBeauty Brands, for the deposition of its person most qualified, and with the PMQ failing to appear for any deposition or to produce documents requested in the deposition notice. (See Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1 [service and copy of deposition notice on iBeauty Brands for deposition and production of documents from PMQ]; see also Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶¶ 2-4 [background permitting inference that no PMQ attended the noticed September 20, 2022 deposition].)

The only question that remains to determine whether Plaintiff has statutory standing to move to compel iBeauty Brands’ PMQ’s deposition and production of documents is to determine the validity of the objections raised by iBeauty Brands to the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

iBeauty Brands raises objections to the deposition notice and its questions and requests for production based on grounds of (1) privilege, (2) right to privacy, (3) undue burden, (4) vagueness, ambiguity, overbreadth, and similar grounds, (5) restrictions of law, (6) relevance, and (7) harassment. (See Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., Ex. 2.) Yet, no privilege log is attached. Neither do Defendants elaborate on their objections in more than a generalized and conclusory fashion. Such objections are insufficient.

Accordingly, the Court determines that Plaintiff has standing to move to compel iBeauty Brands’ PMQ’s deposition and production of documents.

The next question is whether the deposition notice describes with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The Court determines that it does. (See Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., Ex. 1.) A review of the deposition notice shows highly detailed questions for the PMQ, as well as highly detailed production requests, with a definitions section that provide clarity as to the meaning of the questions and requests. (See Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., Ex. 1.) The deposition notice thus satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230.

Next, the Court finds that the production requests—if not the motion itself—show good cause for the production requested in the deposition notice through requests within the proper scope of discovery. (See Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 17-19.)

Last, the Court finds that the motion describes follow-ups with iBeauty Brands regarding deposition of its PMQ. (See Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of iBeauty Brands’ PMQ is thus GRANTED.

Sanctions: GRANTED.

If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court finds that sanctions are warranted here because, even though iBeauty Brands did not oppose this motion, it did not act with substantial justification in failing to submit its PMQ to the noticed deposition.

The Court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $1,668.40, comprised of a fee rate of $400 per hour, three hours expended by counsel on this motion, one hour to appear for this hearing, and costs of $68.40 in making this motion. (Deposition Mot., Nouri Decl., ¶¶ 9-12.)

Conclusion

1.Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant iBeauty Brands, Inc. is ORDERED to provide code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 21 days of this ruling. Where a privilege is raised, the privilege must be sufficiently elaborated in a privilege log.

The corresponding Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

2.Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant iBeauty Brands, Inc. is ORDERED to provide code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 21 days of this ruling. Where a privilege is raised, the privilege must be sufficiently elaborated in a privilege log.

The corresponding Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

3.Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal’s Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant iBeauty Brands, Inc. is ORDERED to provide code-compliant responses to Requests for Production, Set One, within 21 days of this ruling. Where a privilege is raised, the privilege must be sufficiently elaborated in a privilege log.

The corresponding Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

4.Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal’s Motion for Order to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is DENIED.

The corresponding Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

All opposition requests for sanctions by iBeauty Brands are DENIED.

5.Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal’s Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Defendant’s Person(s) Most [Qualified] is GRANTED.

The corresponding Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,668.40.

Defendant iBeauty Brands, Inc. is ORDERED to remit payment of these monies to Plaintiff Aderiyike Lawal within 21 days of this ruling.