Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case 37-2022-00042635-CU-OE-NC 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2022-00042635-CU-OE-NC, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023 10:00:00 AM N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00042635-CU-OE-NC LOPEZ VS. CALBIZ DEVELOPMENT CORP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 09/20/2023

The Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants and Motion for Sanctions brought by plaintiff Jesse Lopez (Plaintiff) is GRANTED, with the request for monetary sanctions reduced to a total of $1,435.00.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g), defendants Ejaz Mohammad, Azra Mohammad, and CalBiz Development Corp. are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,435.00 to Plaintiff. Said sanctions shall be sent to Attorney Rodolfo Ruiz-Velasco of the Ruiz-Velasco Law Firm at 600 W. Broadway Suite 700, San Diego, CA 92101 by no later than Friday, December 22, 2023.

This is a wage and hour dispute. The facts provided indicate that Plaintiff served deposition notices on three defendants in November 2022. The defendants – Ejaz Mohammad, Azra Mohammad, and CalBiz Development Corp. (collectively, Defendants) – characterize this service as 'unilateral' at multiple points in their opposition brief, but the Court rejects any innuendo within that characterization that the noticing of a deposition is improper. By code, a party is not required to obtain consent or stipulation of an opposing party that it seeks to depose, so 'unilateral' deposition notices are the norm – not improper legal practice. While it is true that skilled and cordial counsel are expected to meet and confer to resolve any differences if a deposition notice specifies an inconvenient date and time, the noticing of the deposition in a 'unilateral' manner is not improper.

The evidence further indicates that the parties incurred delays, with the depositions having to be re-noticed multiple times. Plaintiff characterizes this as a delay tactic by Defendants, though there is not a lot of precision behind this allegation to suggest that such delays were underhanded or improperly motivated. Then again, the sheer length of time that it took to actually get the depositions done seems suggestive of an intent to delay that goes beyond mere scheduling issues.

At any rate, after multiple notices that did not result in actual depositions, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 20, 2023. It would appear that the filing of the motion motivated Defendants sufficiently to sit for deposition that all of the depositions were completed by November 14, 2023. Defendants then filed an opposition to the instant motion on November 22, 2023.

Were these the only facts, the Court would be inclined to grant the motion (albeit with the depositions themselves no longer being at issue) as the motion itself would appear to have been the catalyst for the depositions to take place and thus sufficient to warrant the imposition of monetary sanctions because discovery is intended to be self-executing and the monetary sanctions are designed to be remedial for whenever a party has to resort to motion practice to achieve what should have been achieved Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020814 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LOPEZ VS. CALBIZ DEVELOPMENT CORP [IMAGED] 37-2022-00042635-CU-OE-NC out-of-court.

However, the request for sanctions made in connection with the instant motion is for an amount that is unreasonable. While the Court always encourages brevity, the points and authorities in support of the motion are short – roughly six-and-a-half pages – and largely recount the timeline of discovery notices with little need for details legally analysis, case citation, etc. This is the kind of work that could be done more economically by a junior associate, but the work appears to have been performed by a principal attorney. While that principal attorney may be worth the $600.00 per hour that his declaration indicates is his normal rate, this kind of work should not take 3.5 hours of time to complete for someone of that experience level and the failure to assign it to a junior associate renders the foisting of these expenses onto Defendants unreasonable. In these circumstances, the Court would be inclined to significantly reduce the hourly rate charged by Attorney Ruiz-Velasco – not because he is not worth that rate, but because in this particular context having so skilled an attorney handle so simple a task creates a distortion.

However, reducing the hourly rate is not the only issue. The moving papers also seek recovery for making meet and confer efforts. In all but the most egregious cases, this is improper. If it were true that meet and confer efforts alone were compensable attorney time, then the aim of the discovery statutes would be defeated. Discovery is supposed to be self-executing and not require a resort to court. The imposition of meet and confer requirements before bringing a motion is part and parcel to that overall aim. If the meet and confer efforts themselves were compensable, then any time an attorney engages in meet and confer and resolves the issue, they would still have a basis to seek attorney fees – leading to more motion practice, which is the very thing the self-executing nature of the statute is designed to avoid.

In this case, Plaintiff's have overreached for attorney fees – not only by seeking to charge $600.00 hour for junior associate level work, and not only by charging 3.5 partner hours for a simple brief that needed no significant legal analysis, but also for seeking to recover for engaging in the required meet and confer process. It nonetheless appears that the motion was the catalyst for finally getting the depositions done.

With that in mind, the Court reduces the requested hourly rate down to $250.00 per hour, declines to award fees for the time spent meeting and conferring, and reduces the estimated time spent at the hearing to 0.5 hours. With those changes, the calculation looks as follows: --$875.00 (3.5 hours at $250 per hour) (drafting moving papers) --$375.00 (1.5 hours at $250 per hour) (reviewing opposition and drafting reply) --$125.00 (0.5 hours at $250 per hour) (attending the hearing) --$60.00 (filing fee) --$1,435.00 (total) Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020814