Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV17682, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17682    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Suzanne Ruelas

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendant City of Baldwin Park

Motions to Compel Defendant City of Baldwin Park to Provide Responses to: Request for Admission and Form Interrogatories General (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), and Special Interrogatories (Set Four)

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff Suzanne Ruelas (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants City of Baldwin Park (the “City”), Shannon Yauchzee, Rose Tam, Laura Thomas, Robert Tafoya, Manuel Lozano, Michael Taylor, Benjamin Martinez and DOES 1 to 100,  alleging that her employment as a housing manager with the City was wrongfully terminated. 

On February 23, 2022, after the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) for (1) wrongful termination of employment in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 (wage complaints); (2) wrongful termination of employment in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 (fraud complaints); (3) discrimination on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (6) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (7) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (9) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (10) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (11) retaliation on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (12) retaliation for engaging in protected activity in violation of FEHA; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (14) defamation.

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff served discovery requests on the City.  On January 3, 2023, having not received any responses, Plaintiff filed her motions to compel the City to provide responses to Plaintiff’s: (1) Request for Admissions (Set Two) and Form Interrogatories General (Set Two)[1]; (2) Request for Production of Documents (Set Three); (3) Special Interrogatory (Set Four).  The City filed oppositions, and Plaintiff filed replies.  The court considers Plaintiff’s motions to compel in turn.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Admission (Set Two) is procedurally improper.  First, it is grouped with Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two), when it should have been filed as a separate motion.  Second, the proper mechanism for addressing a failure to provide responses to Requests for Admission is a “motion to deem admitted,” not a motion to compel responses.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.280, subd. (b).) A motion to compel initial responses to requests for admission does not exist.  Here, the court considers the motion to compel responses to Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories as a motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted and a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.280, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

¿            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿  In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff served the City with discovery requests on November 9, 2022.  (See Gbewonyo Decls., ¶ 3.)  Responses were due thirty days later on December 9, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2033.250, subd. (a).)  However, the City did not serve any responses.  (Gbewonyo Decls., ¶ 4.)  Therefore, all objections to the requests for admission, interrogatories, and inspection are waived.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling the City to provide responses to the at-issue Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production.  In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the at-issue Requests for Admission admitted against the City. 

Moreover, the court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted.  The City filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions which do not provide any reasonable explanation why the City did not respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  The City contends Plaintiff’s counsel did not notify defense counsel that responses were due, which would have been “the proper, courteous, and reasonable thing to do.”  However, as the City also concedes, Plaintiff was not obligated to do so.  The City’s representation that (1) responses to the discovery sought have been prepared and are pending the City’s review and approval; (2) the Baldwin Park City Hall was closed for the holidays from December 26 until January 6; and (3) the Human Resources Manager responsible for reviewing and approving responses had only started her job in the last week do not excuse the City’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations. None of these representations explain why the City did not request an extension of time from Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests, which were due on December 9, 2022. Therefore, the City did not act with substantial justification in failing to respond to the discovery requests or in filing its opposition.  

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against the City and its counsel Leal-Trejo, APC, for the preparation of the motions to compel and reply papers in the amount of $4,810 for each motion, which represents eight hours of counsel’s time per motion at a rate of $475 to research, prepare, and draft the motions, and an additional two hours to draft replies and prepare for the hearing. All told, Plaintiff seeks $14,430 (3 x $4,810) in sanctions.  The court notes, however, that the motions overlap in much of their facts, legal grounds, and arguments.  Accordingly, the court reduces the monetary sanctions award to $5,880 based on 12 hours being a more reasonable amount of time spent on the motions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motions.

The court orders the City to serve a complete verified response or responses, without objections, within 10 days of the date of notice of this motion, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories General (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Four), and to produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Request for Production of Documents (Set Three).  In addition, Request for Admissions (Set Two) are deemed admitted against the City.

            The court orders the City to pay $5,880 (12 hours x $475/hr plus 3x$60 filing fees) in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of notice of this motion.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 31, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court