Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV45139, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45139    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that he suffered retaliation for voicing safety concerns at various worksites involving the operation of heavy machinery.  

            Defendant City of Los Angeles doing business by and through its Department of Water and Power moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general, set one and employment, set one, as well as to requests for production of documents, set one.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant City of Los Angeles doing business by and through its Department of Water and Power’s motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general, set one and employment, set one, as well as to requests for production of documents, set one are deemed to be MOOT.

            The Court finds that the appropriate amount of sanctions is $1,360 per motion, for a total of $4,080 against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Bradford T. Child, Esq. of Child & Marton LLP, jointly and severally.

            Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.

DISCUSSION

Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, and Request For Production of Documents, Set One

Analysis

            On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff served responses. The Declaration of Rebecca M. Gabroy erroneously refers to April 8, 2023 as the date on which Plaintiff served responses, but the June 2, 2023 deadline to which Gabroy refers appears to be measured by service of responses on April 18, 2023—a date confirmed in the Opposition.

            On June 2, 2023, Defendant filed and served the motions on this date, which is the deadline for bringing motions to compel further.

            On September 29, or October 2, 2023, Plaintiff served further responses to the subject written discovery.

            In the Reply brief, Defendant does not seek even further responses, but only argues that sanctions should be imposed. As such, the Court deems the motions to compel further responses to be MOOT.

The Court does not take into consideration what happened with other methods or sets of discovery, other than those at issue in this motion.

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 Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

            The Court will impose sanctions upon Plaintiff and his counsel of record, because supplemental responses were not served until after these motions were filed.

            The Court finds that the appropriate amount of sanctions is $1,360 (4 hours at $325/hr, plus $60 in filing fees—see Gabroy Declarations) per motion, for a total of $4,080 against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record, Bradford T. Child, Esq. of Child & Marton LLP, jointly and severally.

            Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.