Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV08143, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08143    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 74

Quevedo v. Bellwood Animal Hospital, et al.

Plaintiff Olivia Quevedo’s Motion to Compel Site Inspection  

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an employment dispute.

Plaintiff Oliva Quevedo (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against her employers Bellwood Animal Hospital; Dr. Haridy Veterinary Emergency and Trauma Services California, Inc.; and Mohamed Haridy. 

On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff served a Notice of Site Inspection of Bellwood Animal Hospital (Bellwood) which Parties continued to August 17, 2024.

On August 16, 2024, Bellwood refused to allow the site inspection.

LEGAL STANDARD

            If a party fails to permit an inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a).)  The Court may impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a demand for inspection.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(b).) 

DISCUSSION

             Plaintiff served Notice of Site Inspection on June 4, 2024.  Parities eventually agreed to a site inspection on August 17, 2024, subject to a stipulated protective order.  (Wagner Decl., ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff has made several attempts to work with Bellwood to develop a protective order to allow for site inspection.  (Wagner Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.) 

            Bellwood alleges that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally inadequate because it fails to contain a separate statement.  A separate statement is not required when no response to discovery has been provided.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  Here, Plaintiff alleges that Bellwood has provided no formal response to her inspection demand.  Therefore, no separate statement was required.

            Similarly, Bellwood argues that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the order compelling the inspection because Plaintiff failed to provide a draft protective order before August 15, 2024.  Bellwood states that Plaintiff has not attempted to meet and confer after the original failed site inspection.  Bellwood does not provide a declaration to support this allegation which contradicts Plaintiff’s Counsel’s sworn affidavit.  (Wagner Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10.) 

            Plaintiff met her burden to meet and confer about Bellwood’s request for a protective order.  Additionally, Plaintiff shows that an inspection of the property is relevant to her multiple allegations of workplace harassment and whistleblower status.  Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has good cause to compel the site inspection. 

            Bellwood fails to make a case for why a protective order is required before proceeding with the site inspection.  Defendant briefly states that a protective order is necessary to protect the privacy of pet owners but fails to provide legal authority.  Additionally, Bellwood has not filed a motion for a protective order.

            Plaintiff requests $6,295.00 in sanctions.  No reply was filed.  Therefore, the Court finds $5,295.00 in sanctions reasonable.  Plaintiff request sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel.  Sanctions may be imposed against an attorney only if the attorney advises the misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).)  Plaintiff provides declarations supporting the continued attempts to meet and confer even after the stipulated date, to which Defendant provided no responses.  (Wagner Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. G.)  This is sufficient to allege that Defendants advised the misuse of process.  Whether the attorney gave such advice is within the knowledge of the attorney or the client, therefore, the attorney has the burden of proving the attorney did not advise the client.  (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 799.)  The Opposition does not address the attorney’s actions, nor does it provide a declaration to counter Plaintiff’s allegations.  Therefore, the Court imposes sanctions against Bellwood and Lawrence Hoodack jointly.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Site Inspection.  The Court awards $5,295.00 in sanctions payable jointly and severally by Bellwood and Bellwood’s counsel to Plaintiff within 30 days.