Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24GDCV00238, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24GDCV00238, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24GDCV00238 Hearing Date: February 13, 2025 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 02/13/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24GDCV00238
Trial Date: 06/29/2026
Case Name: TILLMAN PINK III, an individual; v. GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE, a Corporation

3 TENTATIVE RULINGS – COMPEL RESPONSES/DEEM ADMITTED

Motion 1 Relief Requested (Res. No. 6612)
Defendant, Glen Park at Valley Village, moves the Court for an order establishing the truth of the matters set forth in its Requests for Admissions, Set One, to Plaintiff Tillman Pink III, and an order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Brent S. Buchsbaum with the Law Offices of Buchsbaum & Haag, LLP, in the amount of $2,824.37, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.

Motion 2 Relief Requested (Res. No. 4315)
Defendant, Glen Park at Valley Village, moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, Tillman Pink III, to provide responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Brent S. Buchsbaum with the Law Offices of Buchsbaum & Haag, LLP, in the amount of $1,609.37 pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290.

Motion 3 Relief Requested (Res. No. 9121)
Defendant, Glen Park at Valley Village, moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff, Tillman Pink III, to provide responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Brent S. Buchsbaum with the Law Offices of Buchsbaum & Haag, LLP, in the amount of $1,744.37 pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.0101, 2031.300, and 2031.320.

Procedural

Moving Party: Defendant, Glen Park at Valley Village

Responding Party: Plaintiff, Tillman Pink III

Moving Papers for all 3 motions: Notice/Motion; Sergio Bent Declaration

Opposition Papers for all 3 motions: Brent S. Buchsbaum Declaration

Reply papers for all 3 motions: No reply submitted

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Tillman Pink III, filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant, Glen Park at Valley Village, on 2/6/2024.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA, (2) Failure to Accommodate/Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA, (3) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process, and (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES
Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP § 2030.260(a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

Further, if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4^th 390, 404 citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶ 8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response. (CCP § 2031.260(a).)

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b).)

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (CCP § 2031.300(a).) “The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)

LEGAL STANDARD –REQUEST TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED
“Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (CCP § 2033.250(a).)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

Further, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2033.280(a).)

“The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

TENTATIVE RULINGS
Defendant states that the instant three discovery requests were served on November 12, 2024. Defendant argues that Plaintiff was supposed to provide responses by December 16, 2024. Defendant states that on January 4, 2025, it requested responses without objection by January 13, 2025 to avoid motion practice. Defendant states that as of the filing of the instant motions on January 16, 2025, Plaintiff has still not served responses to the instant three discovery tools.

For all three of the motions on calendar for 2/13/2025, Plaintiff did not submit an opposition. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the declaration Brent S. Buchsbaum (Plaintiff’s counsel).

The Court is not entirely clear of the purpose of Plaintiff’s counsel’s (Brent S. Buchsbaum) declaration.

Buchsbaum points out that although Defendant stated that discovery was served on November 12, 2024, Defendant initially served the discovery on November 9, 2024 to a random attorney named Michael Buchsbaum. Buchsbaum attaches an email wherein a Michael Buchsbaum forwarded Brent discovery, and Michael explains how sometimes he receives discovery for other Buchsbaums.

Buchsbaum’s declaration then states that on November 12, 2024, he sent Mr. Bent (Defendant’s counsel) an email indicating that he had served discovery on the wrong office. Buchsbaum also states that he advised his secretary that although they had the discovery via a third party, this did not constitute discovery.

Buchsbaum then goes on to state that later on November 12, 2024, Mr. Bent (Defendant’s counsel) emailed him and his secretary with the instant discovery and a proof of service.

Buchsbaum then goes on to say that Plaintiff’s counsel did not affirmatively consent to electronic service, and that the parties had no electronic service agreement.

Buchsbaum then goes on to state that although the parties did not consent to electronic service, they had served documents by email previously.

At the hearing, the Court would like Plaintiff’s counsel (Brent S. Buchsbaum), to address what he is attempting to say about not consenting to electronic service.

Although the discovery was incorrectly served on November 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel clearly received the instant discovery at the latest by November 12, 2024, when Defendant’s counsel re-served Plaintiff’s counsel the instant discovery. The Court is not clear as to what Plaintiff’s counsel is trying to argue when stating, “We did not affirmatively consent to electronic service, and had no electronic service agreement, but had served documents by email previously.” (Buchsbaum Decl. ¶ 3.)

The Court is unclear what Buchsbaum is arguing in Paragraph 3 of his declaration because, although he argues he never consented to electronic service, he also admits that documents have been served by email previously in this matter.

Further, on eCourt, Buchsbaum lists his email address as brent@buchsbaumhaag.com.

Not only did Defendant serve Buchsbaum the instant three motions at brent@buchsbaumhaag.com, but Defendant re-served Buchsbaum with the instant discovery on November 12, 2024 at brent@buchsbaumhaag.com

The Court would like Buchsbaum to discuss the service address issue.

Further, Buchsbaum attempting to point out that he did not consent to electronic service seems potentially besides then point when Buchsbaum’s declaration then goes on to explain why Buchsbaum has still not provided responses.

Buchsbaum states that his secretary broke her ankle, was in the hospital, underwent surgeries, ran the calendar at the office, and her absence stretched several weeks.

Buchsbaum also states that his paralegal normally prepares discovery, but the secretary did not calendar a due date. Brent then states that it is unclear if the secretary did not calendar a due date because of the confusion of the initial service or because the secretary failed to calendar because of her own health struggles.

Buchsbaum then admits that he received the January 4, 2025 email from Defendant’s counsel indicating that no responses had been received by the deadline.

Buchsbaum then admits that he forwarded the email about lack of responses to his paralegal, and that the paralegal indicated that she was working on it, but then the paralegal left for vacation from January 12, 2025 – January 19, 2025 without requesting an extension for the responses.

Buchsbaum then admits that after receiving the motions to compel, the same day he indicated he would work on getting Defendant’s counsel the discovery before the hearing date.

Buchsbaum then states that he has been working on getting discovery responses and has been making progress, but Plaintiff’s son was in an automobile accident and suffered a brain bleed and is in intensive care. Buchsbaum states that due to emotional distress and preoccupation with Plaintiff’s son’s health, Plaintiff is not in a position to assist with discovery at this time. Buchsbaum then states that it is possible Plaintiff’s counsel can get discovery completed prior to the instant hearings.

Despite Buchsbaum’s arguments about not consenting to electronic service, and despite the reasons for not providing timely responses, Buchsbaum then admits that these deadlines ultimately fall on him because he is the lawyer on the case.

The Court will hear argument.

The Court would like Plaintiff’s counsel to address his argument about not consenting to electronic service. The two parties are to discuss proper service addresses.

Setting the service issues aside, and assuming the instant discovery was served, Defendant appears entitled to responses and an order establishing the truth of the matters admitted because Plaintiff did not, and still has not, provided timely responses. However, the Court will hear argument because Buchsbaum’s declaration states that he will try to get responses to Defendant’s counsel before the instant hearing.

Sanctions – Requests for Admission

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Sanctions - Inspection Demands

In relevant part, 2031.300(c) states as follows:

Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall 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 response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.

(CCP § 2031.300(c).)

Sanctions – Interrogatories
CCP § 2030.290 states in relevant part:

The court shall 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 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.

(CCP § 2030.290(c).)

TENATIVE RULING SANCTIONS

For Motion 1, Defendant’s counsel requests sanctions as follows:

8. I spent 3.1 hours preparing the instant notice of motion, motion, declaration, and exhibits. I anticipate spending 2.0 hours preparing a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, and 1.0 hour preparing for and appearing at the hearing on this motion. My hourly billable rate on this matter is $450 per hour or a total of $2,745 in attorney’s fees. This rate is more than reasonable based on my 29 years of practicing employment law and having been a Partner at Ford & Harrison LLP before opening Bent Carly & Kroll, LLP in April 2010. Defendant will also incur the following fees in the amount of $79.37 for filing the instant motion: (1) Motion to Deem RFA’s Admitted $60; (2) Los Angeles County Court Transaction Fee $2.25; (3) EFM Convenience Fee $3.50; (4) Provider Service Fee (Ace Attorney Service) $11.75; and Payment Service Fee $1.87.

9. Accordingly, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the total amount of $2,824.37 for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, to file the instant motion.

(Bent Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

For Motion 2, Defendant’s counsel requests sanctions as follows:

8. I spent 1.4 hours preparing the instant notice of motion, motion, declaration, and exhibits. I anticipate spending 1.5 hours preparing a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, and .5 hours preparing for and appearing at the hearing on this motion. My hourly billable rate on this matter is $450 per hour for a total of $1,530 in attorney’s fees. This rate is more than reasonable based on my 29 years of practicing employment law and having been a Partner at Ford & Harrison LLP before opening Bent Carly & Kroll, LLP in April 2010. Defendant will also incur the following fees in the amount of $79.37 for filing the instant motion: (1) Motion to Compel Interrogatories responses $60; (2) Los Angeles County Court Transaction Fee $2.25; (3) EFM Convenience Fee $3.50; (4) Provider Service Fee (Ace Attorney Service) $11.75; and Payment Service Fee $1.87.

9. Accordingly, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the total amount of $1,609.37 for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, to file the instant motion.

(Bent Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

For Motion 3, Defendant’s counsel requests sanctions as follows:

8. I spent 1.7 hours preparing the instant notice of motion, motion, declaration, and exhibits. I anticipate spending 1.5 hours preparing a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, and .5 hours preparing for and appearing at the hearing on this motion. My hourly billable rate on this matter is $450 per hour or a total of $1,665 in attorney’s fees. This rate is more than reasonable based on my 29 years of practicing employment law and having been a Partner at Ford & Harrison LLP before opening Bent Carly & Kroll, LLP in April 2010. Defendant will also incur the following fees in the amount of $79.37 for filing the instant motion: (1) Motion to Compel RFP responses $60; (2) Los Angeles County Court Transaction Fee $2.25; (3) EFM Convenience Fee $3.50; (4) Provider Service Fee (Ace Attorney Service) $11.75; and Payment Service Fee $1.87.

9. Accordingly, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the total amount of $1,744.37 for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, to file the instant motion.

(Bent Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

“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(a).)

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions. The Court notes that no replies were submitted for any of the three motions; therefore, time should not be awarded for replies.