Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV00328, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV00328 Hearing Date: February 7, 2025 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 02/07/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24NNCV00328
Trial Date: 01/12/2026
Case Name: JOYCE WAHBA v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Corporation; JAMES
VALERIANO, an Individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive
4
TENTATIVE RULINGS – COMPEL RESPONSES
Motion 1 Relief Requested (Res. No.
1042)
Plaintiff, Joyce Wahba, moves for an
order compelling Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, to serve verified responses
without objections to Special Interrogatories propounded on May 31, 2024 within
fourteen days of the hearing of this motion.
Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions
in the sum of $3,065.00 for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred
because of Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process.
Motion 2 Relief Requested (Res. No.
0419)
Plaintiff, Joyce Wahba, moves for an
order deeming Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant,
Starbucks, on May 31, 2024 deemed admitted.
Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions
in the sum of $3,065.00 for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred
because of Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process.
Motion 3 Relief Requested (Res. No. 9056)
Plaintiff, Joyce Wahba, moves for an
order compelling Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, to serve verified responses
without objections to Form Interrogatories propounded on May 31, 2024 within 14
days of the hearing of this motion.
Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions
in the sum of $3,065.00 for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred
because of Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process.
Motion 4 Relief Requested (Res. No.
9513)
Plaintiff, Joyce Wahba, will move
the Court for an order compelling Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, to serve
verified responses and produce all documents requested without objections to
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, propounded on May
31, 2024 within fourteen days of the hearing.
Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions
in the amount of $3,065.00 for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs
incurred because of Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process.
Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff,
Joyce Wahba
Responding Party: Defendant,
Starbucks Corporation
Moving Papers for all 4 motions: Notice/Motion; Proposed
Order. Plaintiff also submitted a supplemental declaration of Andrew Zaki; it
appears as if this supplemental declaration was submitted to apply for all four
motions.
Opposition Papers: Oppositions submitted for all four
motions
Reply papers for all 4 motions: Replies submitted for all
four motions
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
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.4th 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).)
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.4th 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 –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 RULING ALL FOUR MOTIONS
Here,
Defendant did not provide timely responses to any of the instant discovery
requests. Defendant not only failed to provide responses within 30 days of
service of the discovery at issue, but Defendant also failed to provide
responses by the extension that Plaintiff granted to Defendant.
Although Defendant did not provide responses in a
timely fashion, the responses were provided to Plaintiff before Plaintiff filed
the instant motion. However, at the time that Plaintiff filed the instant
motion, Defendant had not provided verifications. Defendant then provided
verifications after the instant four motions were filed.
The Court will hear argument as to how these four
motions should be handled.
On the one hand, the Defendant did not provide timely
responses, and the Court has authority to grant Plaintiff’s motions. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
Further, it appears as if many of Defendant’s
responses in all four sets of discovery contain objections.
The Court therefore understands Plaintiff’s concerns
that Defendant waived objections, yet Defendant still asserted objections when
they were waived.
On the other hand, Defendant argues that the four
motions are moot because responses were provided and verifications were
ultimately provided before the hearing on this motion.
The Court’s concern about compelling responses is that
it would essentially be compelling further responses because initial responses were
already provided.
The Court will hear argument. At the very least, the
issue of sanctions is not moot.
Sanctions
Plaintiff’s
counsel seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,065.00 for each of the four
motions.
Plaintiff’s counsel states:
As a result of Starbucks’s misuse of the
discovery process, I have expended approximately 3.75 hours in pursuit of this
matter, including drafting of this motion. I expect to spend another 2.25 hours
drafting any reply that might be necessitated and appearing at the hearing of
this motion. My hourly billing rate is $500. Based on these hours and this
reasonably billing rate, I request that the Court order Defendant Starbucks and
their counsel to reimburse Plaintiff $3,000.00, for the reasonable attorneys’ fees
incurred in bringing this Motion, plus the $65.00 filing fee.
(Zaki Decl. ¶ 5.)
Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted
because Plaintiff’s motion was not necessary or made with substantial
justification.
Defendant’s argument that the instant motion was not
necessary or that Plaintiff didn’t have substantial justification is
unavailing. Nothing in the legal standards for compelling responses states that
Movant has to have necessity or substantial justification.
Defendant also seems to argue that it made multiple
attempts to contact Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the discovery at issue via
telephone and e-mail. The Court still fails to understand how Defendant’s
argument on this issue is rooted in legal authority because Plaintiff did not
have to meet and confer before filing the instant motions.
Defendant’s counsel’s excuse for not providing timely
responses is that : (1) the fact that both parents of lead trial counsel, Lindy
F. Bradley, Esq., had been unexpectedly hospitalized, and had undergone
multiple surgeries, in August 2024; (2) Ms. Bradley underwent a secretarial
change in August 2024; and (3) Ms. Bradley was engaged in extensive Trial
preparation for a case scheduled to begin on September 23, 2024.
Defendant’s counsel also argues that a second
extension to respond was sought, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused.
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).)
Sanctions Ruling
“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 is likely to grant at least some
sanctions because Defendant’s untimely responses caused the filing of the
instant four motions.