Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV03309, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03309    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 74

Luis Gonzalez v. Monzon & Son Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiff Luis Gonalez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (Set One) from Defendant Monzon & Son Enterprises, Inc.

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On Febuuray 14, 2023, Plaintiff Luis Gonzalez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Monzon & Son Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant).

            On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with form interrogatories, employment law (set one) (Interrogatories).

            On September 22, 2023, Defendant responded with objections only.

            On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories at issue.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            ¿¿A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to interrogatories if the propounding party deems that an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff seeks further responses to all the interrogatories at issue. As a preliminary matter, the court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for this motion and the parties have sufficiently met and conferred. The court also notes that Defendant’s boilerplate objections are too general and improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a); Korea Data Systems v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) Moreover, Defendant has not expanded upon its objections in a timely opposition and separate statement. Thus, further responses will be necessary. In addition, the court finds that sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, and she has sufficiently substantiated her request for attorney fees. (Manalo Decl., ¶ 10.) But because Defendant did not file a timely opposition requiring Plaintiff’s review and reply, the court reduces the award accordingly ($1,860 = $600/hr. x 3 hrs. + $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION

                The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Employment Law (Set One). Defendant shall provide further, Code-Compliant responses by January 29, 2024. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for attorney sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $1,860 by January 29, 2024.

                Plaintiff shall give notice.