Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Sammons vs. Alteryx, Inc.", Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion by defendant Alteryx, Inc. (“Alteryx”) to compel plaintiff Alex Sammons (“plaintiff”) to provide further discovery responses is GRANTED.  The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED for the reasons stated below.

Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPS”)

Alteryx seeks two forms of relief with respect to the first set of RFPS it propounded to plaintiff. 

First, Alteryx seeks an order compelling plaintiff to comply with his statement of compliance in accordance with CCP §2031.320(a)). In response to Alteryx’s RFPS No. 2 through 10, plaintiff raised no objections and responded that all responsive documents “shall be produced in entirety.”  However, when documents were produced on 4/1/2022, the production lacked several categories of responsive documents which plaintiff represented that he would produce. (Samuel Decl. ¶12) As plaintiff did not oppose the motion and presented no argument to the contrary, the motion is GRANTED.

Second, Alteryx requests that plaintiff serve further responses to RFPS Nos. 2-10 which comply with CCP §2031.280(a). Plaintiff produced over a hundred documents without specifying the particular request to which they respond.  (Samuel Decl. Ex. O)

Alteryx has shown good cause for a further response from plaintiff to its first demand for production of documents. All of the RFPS at issue seek documents which are relevant to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint for wrongful termination and retaliation. (CCP §2031.310(b)(1); Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117).

The court notes that after service of the demand, plaintiff indicated a privilege log would be forthcoming, but apparently no such log was ever served.  Alteryx argues any privileges have been waived by the failure to raise them in plaintiff’s initial response and by the service of an untimely response. (Samuel Decl. ¶¶3-4, 8-9) If a responding party objects to an inspection demand, the response must clearly set forth the extent of and the specific ground for the objection. (CCP §2031.240(b)(2)) The failure to include an objection in the initial discovery response, including based upon the attorney-client privilege, results in waiver of the privilege. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273-274). Service of an untimely response also results in waiver of objections. (CCP §2031.300(a)). Plaintiff has not sought any relief from such waiver.

Accordingly, the motion to compel plaintiff to provide a further verified response, without objection, to RFPS No. 2-10 which complies with CCP §2031.280 is GRANTED as requested.

Interrogatories

Alteryx has demonstrated that plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatory (“SROG”) No. 1, and Employment Form Interrogatories (“EROG”) Nos. 210.2 and 210.6 are incomplete. In the absence of any opposition from plaintiff to the contrary, the motion is GRANTED.

It is therefore ordered that within 20 days from the date of the hearing, plaintiff shall:

(1) comply with his statement of compliance and produce all documents responsive to RFPS Nos. 2 -10 in Alteryx’s first set of inspection demands, including any documents withheld on the basis of privilege;

(2) serve further verified written responses, without objection, to inspection demands Nos. 2-10 which comply with CCP §2031.280(a),

(3) serve further verified code-compliant responses, without objection, to SROG No. 1 and EROGS Nos. 210.2 and 210.6.

Sanctions:

Pursuant to CCP §§2031.310(h), 2031.320(b) and 2030.300(d) the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel under those statutes 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.

The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that the one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process pay the “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees” incurred as a result of such conduct. (CCP §2023.030(a)). When a party seeks monetary sanctions in connection with discovery motions, CCP §2023.040 mandates that the request for sanctions be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.  An award of monetary sanctions based on an arbitrary amount cannot stand. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262-263).

Here, attorney Samuel provided no factual basis upon which the court can determine the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fee incurred by Alteryx in connection with this motion.  Samuel simply asks for $7500 in sanctions without providing her hourly fee, the number of hours she spent preparing the motion or any calculation of or supporting facts for the $7500 in sanctions requested. Under the circumstances, the imposition of $7500 in sanctions would be arbitrary and therefore unjust. Accordingly, Alteryx’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give Notice of Ruling.