Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV25000, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25000    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER

Date:               12/8/22 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Rosemary Ramos v. Human Services Association et al. (21STCV25000)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos’ Motion to Enforce Court Order is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Rosemary Ramos seeks an order compelling defendants Human Services Association and Josie Williams to pay the total $4,965 in monetary sanctions imposed by the Court. (8/30/22 Minute Order at 7.) To the extent that defendants have not paid the entirety of the monetary sanctions (Voskanyan Reply Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 2), plaintiff may enforce the order imposing monetary sanctions immediately as an independent monetary judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [holding that monetary sanctions have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution].) Thus, there is no need for a further order because plaintiff may enforce the sanctions order through the normal procedures for enforcing a monetary judgment.

Plaintiff also moves for issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions on the ground that defendants Human Services Association violated the Court’s August 30, 2022 discovery order. (Voskanyan Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 2.) The Court ordered defendant Human Services Association to serve further verified code-compliant responses, without objection, to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 47, 49, 50, 51, 67, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86 and produce documents in accordance with the ruling set forth above. (8/30/22 Minute Order at 6.) The deadline to comply with this order was September 14, 2022, fifteen days from the August 30, 2022 hearing. (8/30/22 Minute Order at 6.)

At the time plaintiff filed this motion on November 1, 2022, defendant had not served the required responses. (Voskanyan Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 & Exs. 6, 7.) On November 3, 2022, after the motion was filed, defendant served further supplemental responses. (Voskanyan Reply Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4.)

Plaintiff maintains that the responses to Request Nos. 47, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86 remain insufficient.  The Court agrees.

With respect to Request No. 47, which asks defendant to produce “[e]ach DOCUMENT or set of DOCUMENTS that shows the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals whose employment DEFENDANT involuntarily terminated during the past ten years,” the Court ordered a further response. The Court indicated that “a sufficient answer shall consist of a table listing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all individuals whose employment defendant Human Services Association involuntarily terminated in the past five years.” (8/30/22 Minute Order at 3.)

Defendant’s further supplemental response states, “Pursuant to the Court's Order, Responding Party provides the follows: [¶] Name Address Telephone Number.” (Voskanyan Reply Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4.) Defendant did not provide the names, addresses, or telephone numbers of individuals whose employment it involuntarily terminated in the past five years. A further response providing this information is required.

With respect to Request Nos. 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86, which ask defendant to produce communications, including text messages and emails, between specified individuals relating to plaintiff or communications, including text messages and emails, between plaintiff and specified individuals, defendant had responded that it could not comply with the document requests “due to the retention period of its emails.” (8/30/22 Minute Order at 5.) The Court ordered further responses. Citing CCP § 2031.230, the Court indicated that the “responses are insufficient because defendant provides no reason why it cannot produce the requested communications occurring through means other than e-mail.” (Ibid.)

For each of these requests, defendant’s further supplemental response states, “Responding Party does not have any documents responsive to this request because they never existed since the electronic system in which the communications that may or may not have existed would have auto-cleared. Responding Party has already produced all documents in its possession responsive to this request to the extent possible.” (Voskanyan Reply Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4.)

Plaintiff contends that defendant is improperly limiting its responses to emails. On this point, the Court disagrees, as the further supplemental responses reference documents or communications. Indeed, the further supplemental responses do not mention emails at all.

Nevertheless, the further supplemental responses are confusing and evasive. In the first sentence of the responses, defendant states that it is unable to comply with the document requests. In the second sentence of the responses, defendant contradicts itself by representing that it has complied with the document requests. Moreover, the representation in the first sentence that responsive documents “never existed” is inconsistent with the representation that immediately followed it, namely, that communications “may or may not have existed.”

For Request Nos. 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86, defendant is ordered to serve a further response for each request that complies with CCP § 2031.220 or CCP § 2031.230, but not both. If defendant represents that it is unable to comply with any of the document requests, defendant must state in such request whether the responsive communications “never existed” or whether the responsive communications “ha[ve] been destroyed, ha[ve] been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or ha[ve] never been, or [are] no longer, in the possession, custody, or control” of defendant, as set forth in CCP § 2031.230.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Defendant Human Services Association is ordered to serve further verified supplemental responses, without objection, to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 47, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86 in accordance herewith within ten (10) days hereof.

As for sanctions, based on defendant’s service of further, albeit untimely, supplemental responses, the imposition of issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions is unwarranted. (See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 [in selecting discovery sanctions, court should tailor sanction to harm caused by withheld discovery; court cannot impose discovery sanctions to punish.) In this regard, the Court notes that defendant also provided supplemental responses to Request Nos. 49, 50, 51, and 67, which plaintiff appears to have had not quarrel with.   Defendant thus appears to at least be making some meaningful attempt to comply with the August 30, 2022 discovery order.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions for having to file the instant motion in order to receive the court-ordered discovery responses. For failing to serve further verified responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 47, 49, 50, 51, 67, 81, 82, 83, 85, and 86 by the deadline set forth in the August 30, 2022 discovery order, thereby necessitating the filing of this motion, monetary sanctions are imposed on defendant Human Services Association and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,635, based on 2.5 hours preparing the motion papers, 0.5 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply, and 0.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing (instead of the total 7 hours claimed by counsel), all at an hourly rate of $450, plus $60 for the filing fee. Monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for plaintiff within thirty (30) days hereof.