Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV15877, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15877    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 14

Ramos v Sood Enterprises

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that she was forced to combine her breaks and subjected to unwanted sexual advances from her manager.

            On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, (3) Failure to Provide Wage Statements, (4) Failure to Pay Wages, (5) Failure to Respond, (6) Failure to Permit Inspection, (7) Sexual Harassment, (8) Failure to Prevent, and (9) Constructive Termination against Defendants Sood Enterprises, Inc. dba Jack in the Box 325 (“Sood”), Jose Aldana Garcia (“Garcia”), and DOES 1-50.

            On November 7, 2023, Defendants Sood and Garcia filed their joint Answer.

            On October 20, 2023, Defendant Reynaga filed his Answer.

            Bench Trial is currently set for August 5, 2024.

(1)-(3) and (5)-(8) Rogs and RFPs

Plaintiff now moves this court, per Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300 for orders compelling Defendants Reynaga to serve initial responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, and Requests for Production, Set No. One. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions of $1,881.36 per motion.

Decision

The motions are DENIED as MOOT. The request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Defense counsel is ORDERED to file and serve Notices of Related Case in this case and in LASC Case No. 22 STCV 41106, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.300. The notices are to be filed by April 12, 2023.

Discussion

            Plaintiff propounded this discovery on November 1, 2023. (Declaration of Frank Chica Exhibit 1). Counsel agreed that responses would be due on December 18, 2023. (Id. Exhibits 2-3). That morning, Defense counsel emailed to ask for another extension based on two things: (1) his own personal family health issues, and (2) that he changed firms recently, but the client file had hit a snag in the transfer. (Id. Exhibit 4).

            Counsel spoke on the phone, and later confirmed a further extension to December 29, 2023. (Id. Exhibit 5). Counsel were unable to connect after that, and no further extensions were agreed to. (Declaration of Robert A. Orozco ¶¶ 14-15). Defense counsel secured the client file only after the motions were filed, and has served verified responses concurrently with the opposition. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 20, Exhibit 1).

            The service of verified responses renders this motion moot. If Plaintiff has an issue with how the responses are framed (including an argument that objections have been waived by failure to timely respond), her remedy is first in a meeting and conference, then an Informal Discovery Conference, and a motion to compel further responses if all else fails.

            The failure to serve responses appears to be the result of difficulties in transferring the client file between firms. This sort of clerical snafu is largely out of anyone’s hands. It would be unjust to impose sanctions under these circumstances.

            One final item requires comment. Defense counsel represents that this matter is “informally related” to another matter, bearing Case No. 22 STCV 41106 and currently pending before Judge Kristin S. Escalante in Department 24 of this courthouse. (Declaration of Robert A. Orozco ¶ 4). In that other matter, a different plaintiff is suing the same defendants for the same behavior. (Id. ¶¶ 4-6). Both counsel in this case are also counsel in that case. The declarations and exhibits from both counsel indicate that they are treating the cases as a paired set, with efforts to settle that case affecting the timeline in this case.

            There is no such thing as an “informally related” case. California Rules of Court Rule 3.300(b) imposes a duty to file a Notice of Related Case. Counsel need to fulfill that duty, so that Judge Escalante can decide if the cases are truly related or not. Although both counsel have this duty, the court will direct Defense counsel to take the laboring oar in filing the required Notices, based solely on the fact that he is the member of a larger firm and presumably has practical access to more resources.

Conclusion

            The service of verified responses renders the motion MOOT. Therefore, it is DENIED. The failure to timely serve responses appears to be the result of clerical and logistical issues in transferring files when counsel transferred firms. Therefore, the imposition of sanctions would be unjust in these circumstances and the request for sanctions is DENIED.

Finally, if counsel are going to treat two cases as related, they have an obligation to file Notices of Related Case as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.300. Because they have the larger firm, Defense counsel is ORDERED to file and serve Notices of Related Case in this case and in LASC Case No. 22 STCV 41106, pursuant to Rule 3.300. The notices are to be filed by April 12, 2023.

(4)        Deem Admitted

Plaintiff now moves this court for an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Defendant Garcia as admitted by him. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions of $1,881.36.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED as MOOT. Counsel for Defendant Garcia, Mr. Robert A. Orozco, is ORDERED to pay $981.36 in sanctions. The amount is to be delivered to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.

Discussion

            The history of this discovery is the same as the motions discussed above, with two key differences. First, Defense counsel’s declaration does not attach a copy of the verified responses to these requests. Nevertheless, the court will accept his testimony that such responses have been served. Second, as counsel know, Requests for Admissions are different from other discovery requests. While the purpose of other discovery devices is to provide information and make evidence available for trial, Requests for Admissions directly frame the issues to be tried. For this reason, the legislature has treated them with much more urgency, affording extra remedies like the one sought here (or an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420 for having to prove a matter that the opposing party refused to admit) to the requesting parties.

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c) contains no exception permitting the court to decline a sanction request. Instead, it directly instructs the court to impose monetary sanctions on “the party or attorney” whose delay caused the motion to be filed, even if responses have subsequently been served.

            As discussed above, the reason for the late response was a delay in transferring the client file when counsel transferred firms. While, as a practical matter, the court understands that this may have been out of counsel’s hands, care of the client file is ultimately counsel’s responsibility. Therefore, counsel must be the one to pay the sanctions.

            The rate sought by Plaintiff’s counsel, $300 per hour, is eminently reasonable. The amount of time reasonably spent on this motion is two hours to draft the moving papers, and one hour to appear at the hearing. No reply was timely filed, so Plaintiff may not recover for any expense connected with reviewing an opposition or filing a reply. Three hours at $300 per hour, plus the $61.65 filing fee and $19.71 attorney service fee for this motion, results in a sanction of $981.36.