Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV46541, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46541    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) propounded special interrogatories, set two, on Plaintiff Nathalie Shantel Zapata-Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) on November 29, 2022.  As of the filing of the motion, and despite an attempt to meet and confer, Plaintiff has not served responses.  Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and imposing sanctions.

            On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion providing that she served responses without objections to the special interrogatories on February 10, 2023.  Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel did not properly calendar the deadline to respond to the interrogatories, but after meeting and conferring with Defendant’s counsel on January 17, 2023, about the missing responses, Plaintiff informed defense counsel that responses would be served in a couple of weeks.  Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s counsel did not disagree, so Plaintiff’s counsel believed an extension was granted. 

            In reply, Defendant does not dispute that responses were served on February 10, 2023.  Defendant, however, contends that Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with a definitive date responses would be served prior to the motion being filed, so Defendant argues it is entitled to sanctions. 

The Court finds that the motion to compel is moot in light of the responses served on Defendant prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions.  Sanctions are mandatory unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP § 2030.290(c).)  Here, after Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff about the subject discovery responses on January 19, 2023, Plaintiff informed Defendant that responses were being prepared.  Plaintiff provides that Plaintiff’s counsel told defense counsel that responses would be provided in a few weeks, to which defense counsel did not disagree.  Plaintiff’s counsel, thus, believed that an extension was granted.  Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to believe that additional time was provided to Plaintiff to serve responses after meeting and conferring, and responses were ultimately provided.  Therefore, imposing sanctions against Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel is unjust.  No sanctions are awarded. 

As a final note, Defendant reserved the hearing for the instant motion as a hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.  However, Defendant is clearly not seeking to compel further responses, but rather seeking to compel initial responses.  (See Mot. at p. 4:18-19 [“Unlike a motion to compel further responses …”].)  Defendant should have reserved the motion as a hearing on a Motion to Compel Discovery (Not “Further Discovery”).  Failing to properly reserve a hearing for a motion to compel manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.   

Defendant’s Counsel is put on notice, and should instruct their staff, that it is inappropriate to intentionally reserve a hearing date for a different type of motion so that the motion can be heard sooner.  Defendant’s counsel is also put on notice that failure to properly reserve hearings in the future based on the type of motion being heard will result in the matter being taken off calendar.   

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 2^nd day of March 2023