Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV41980, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41980    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Eric Baruch

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant County of Los Angeles

Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff Eric Baruch (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: harassment in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), discrimination in violation of FEHA, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, retaliation in violation of FEHA, and retaliation in violation Labor Code section 1102.5.

            On June 24, 2022, the parties conducted a deposition of one of Defendant’s employees (Deponent). At deposition, Defendant’s counsel instructed the deponent not to answer multiple relevant questions.

            On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter as to the unanswered questions. On July 27, 2022, the parties disputed how much Defendant would pay for a second deposition.

            On August 1, 2022, Defendant agreed to produce the deponent for a second deposition and Plaintiff filed this motion to compel deposition, which included a request for monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process . . . pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

DISCUSSION

            In light of the parties’ agreement to a second deposition, the court finds the motion to compel moot. But the issue of sanctions remains. The court finds that Defendant’s failure to respond to questions during the deposition warrants sanctions. Accordingly, the court will award Plaintiff attorney’s fees for work performed on the motion (4 hours x $500 + $60 filing fee = $2,060). The court notes that the parties agreed to a second deposition on August 1, 2022. (Rush Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Although the motion was thereafter moot, Plaintiff was reasonable in not taking the motion off calendar due to the issue of sanctions. Accordingly, the court will award Plaintiff attorney fees for review of Defendant’s non-opposition, drafting a reply, and appearing at the hearing, but in a reduced amount because the motion to compel was moot by that point (1.5 hours x $500 = $750). The court will also award Plaintiff attorney fees for taking the second deposition, as well as the court reporter’s fee (1 hour x $500 + $350.00 = $850.00)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court finds the motion to compel deposition moot.

The court will impose $3,660 in monetary sanctions on Defendant payable to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of this order.

 Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 27, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court