Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV23617, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23617    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Juliana Mejia sues Defendant Contract Services Group, Inc. (CSG) and Does 1 to 50 pursuant to a May 1, 2023 First Amended Complaint alleging claims of: (1) FEHA Sex Discrimination; (2) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Sex Discrimination; (3) FEHA Sexual Harassment; (4) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment; (5) FEHA National Origin and Race Harassment; (6) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent National Origin and Race Harassment; (7) FEHA Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Harassment and Discrimination; (8) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Unlawful Harassment and Discrimination; (9) Wrongful Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; (10) Negligent Hiring and Retention; and (11) Civil Penalties – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Action (“PAGA”).

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff Mejia served Defendant CSG with Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One.

On September 6, 2022, Defendant CSG moved to compel arbitration in this action pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the parties. The motion was set for hearing on March 1, 2023.

On October 3, 2022, Defendant CSG served objections in response to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests on the ground that CSG should not be required to engage in discovery while the motion to compel arbitration was pending in light of the possible waiver of arbitration it could trigger.

On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff Mejia moved to compel further responses to the form interrogatories and requests for production and requested sanctions related thereto. The motion was set for hearing on May 15, 2023.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff Mejia opposed the motion to compel arbitration.

On February 22, 2023, Defendant CSG replied to the February 15th opposition.

On March 1, 2023, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration.

On March 21, 2023, Defendant CSG filed an Answer in this matter.

On May 1, 2023, Defendant CSG served Plaintiff Mejia with supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One.

On May 2, 2023, Defendant CSG filed an opposition to the motion to compel further responses arguing that the motion to compel further responses was mooted by the May 1st supplemental production and that monetary sanctions were unjust.

On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff Mejia replied to the May 2nd opposition arguing that the May 1st production was deficient and that 13 hours’ worth of sanctions were merited in this matter.

The motion to compel further responses is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

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].)

Order Compelling Further Interrogatory Responses: MOOT.

While Plaintiff Mejia argues that the May 1, 2023 supplemental responses by Defendant CSG do not moot her motion to compel further interrogatory responses, the Court finds otherwise. (See Reply, pp. 3-6 [arguments against mootness]; Reply, Haulk Decl., Ex. A [copy of supplemental responses].) The reason for this conclusion is that, however unsatisfactory Plaintiff Mejia may find them, Defendant CSG has provided supplemental responses consisting of objections and/or substantive replies in relation to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One.

Further, it would be unfair to decide this motion based on arguments raised in Plaintiff Mejia’s reply without giving Defendant CSG a chance to respond other than at the hearing. Rather, the Court finds that it is more appropriate for Plaintiff Mejia to file a new motion to compel further interrogatory responses. To that end, the Court PERMITS Plaintiff Mejia to compel further discovery as to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One, within the usual 45-day period from time of service.

Overall, however, the Court finds that this motion is MOOT based on the May 1st supplemental responses. Nevertheless, Defendant CSG is admonished for not providing responses sooner following the March 1, 2023 hearing on its motion to compel arbitration as opposed to one day prior to filing its opposition to Plaintiff Mejia’s motion to compel further responses.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

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)).

Order Compelling Further Production: MOOT.

While Plaintiff Mejia argues that the May 1, 2023 supplemental responses by Defendant CSG do not moot her motion to compel further production, the Court finds otherwise. (See Reply, pp. 6-9 [arguments against mootness]; Reply, Haulk Decl., Ex. B [copy of supplemental responses].) The reason for this conclusion is that, however unsatisfactory Plaintiff Mejia may find them, Defendant CSG has provided supplemental responses consisting of objections, assent to produce documents, and/or statements to the effect that no responsive documents exist in relation to Requests for Production, Set One.

Further, it would be unfair to decide this motion based on arguments raised in Plaintiff Mejia’s reply without giving Defendant CSG a chance to respond other than at the hearing. Rather, the Court finds that it is more appropriate for Plaintiff Mejia to file a new motion to compel further production. To that end, the Court PERMITS Plaintiff Mejia to compel further discovery as to Requests for Production, Set One, within the usual 45-day period from time of service.

Overall, however, the Court finds that this motion is MOOT based on the May 1st supplemental responses. Nevertheless, Defendant CSG is admonished for not providing responses sooner following the March 1, 2023 hearing on its motion to compel arbitration as opposed to one day prior to filing its opposition to Plaintiff Mejia’s motion to compel further responses.

Request for Sanctions

Legal Standard

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).)

Except in certain circumstances involving electronically 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).)

The court may also 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).)

Order Granting Monetary Sanctions: GRANTED, in Part.

Plaintiff Mejia asks for $7,150 in monetary sanctions against Defendant CSG on two grounds. First, Plaintiff Mejia requests sanctions of $3,300 against Defendant CSG for “making unmeritorious objections and refusing to respond to written discovery on the basis of those unmeritorious objections” related to arbitration proceedings, as well as based on Plaintiff’s counsel spending six hours preparing this motion—including the points and authorities, the declaration, the request for judicial notice, and the separate statements—and on the meet and confer process, billed at a rate of $550 per hour. (Mot., p. 6; Mot., Fault Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff Mejia’s reply seeks an additional $3,850 in monetary sanctions against Defendant CSG based on Plaintiff’s counsel being required to spend an additional seven hours preparing the reply, consisting of the time needed to draft the reply brief and its accompanying declaration, with the extra time spent on preparing arguments raised in the opposition and the supplemental responses provided by Defendant CSG. (Reply, p. 9; Reply, Haulk Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant CSG’s opposition argues that because it had substantial justification and a good faith belief that its motion to compel arbitration would be granted, the request for sanctions should be denied. (Opp’n, p. 3.)

The Court finds it is appropriate to compensate Plaintiff Mejia in the amount of $3,575, i.e., half of the requested amount. The Court reaches this conclusion by finding that while Defendant CSG may have had justifiable grounds to oppose this motion based on its belief that the motion to compel arbitration would be granted, CSG was dilatory in providing those supplemental responses until two months after the ruling on the motion to compel arbitration, waiting until one day before its opposition was due to serve them on Plaintiff Mejia. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).) Nothing in the opposition papers or counsel’s declaration attached thereto indicates that CSG informed Plaintiff Mejia that it would be filing supplemental responses, nor provides any reason why it took so long. Instead, the opposition argues this motion is moot and sanctions are unjustified.

Plaintiff’s Mejia request for sanctions is thus GRANTED, in Part, in the amount of $3,575, calculated at a reasonable rate of $550 per hour times a reasonable 6.5 hours worked on this matter by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff Juliana Mejia’s Motion to Compel Further Response[s] [to] Form Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT based on Defendant CSG’s May 1, 2023 supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One.

The Court PERMITS Plaintiff Mejia to compel further discovery as to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set One, within the usual 45-day period from time of service.

Plaintiff Juliana Mejia’s Motion to Compel Further Responses Requests for Production, Set One, is MOOT based on Defendant CSG’s May 1, 2023 supplemental responses to Requests for Production, Set One.

The Court PERMITS Plaintiff Mejia to compel further discovery as to Requests for Production, Set One, within the usual 45-day period from time of service.

Plaintiff Juliana Mejia’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED, in Part, in the amount of $3,575, calculated at a reasonable rate of $550 per hour times a reasonable 6.5 hours worked on this matter by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Defendant Contract Services Group, Inc. is ORDERED TO REMIT PAYMENT of $3,575 to Plaintiff WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS.