Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 19STCV40718, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Moving Defendant Cedar Construction & Development, Inc.’s motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff Cesar Cruz to its Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) is granted. Cruz is ordered to provide Code-compliant responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), Request No. 27, subject to attorney work-product information redactions, within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Employee Justice Legal Group, P.C., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,110.00, payable within 20 days of this ruling.

Defendant Cedar Construction & Development, Inc. (“Cedar”) (“Moving Defendant”) moves to compel further responses from Plaintiff Cesar Cruz (“Cruz”) (“Plaintiff”) to its Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) (“RFP 2”), Request No. 27, and requests sanctions jointly and severally against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, Employee Justice Legal Group, P.C., in the amount of $2,460.00. (Notice Amended Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2031.310(i).)

On September 6, 2024, the parties engaged in an IDC before this Court, regarding Defendant’s RFP 2 and the issues were deemed unresolved. (9/6/24 IDC Minute Order.)

Having reviewed Moving Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses from Plaintiff to Moving Defendant’s RFP 2, the Court rules as follows:

On June 25, 2024, Moving Defendant served RFP 2 on Plaintiff. (Decl. of Horowitz ¶3, Exh. 1.) On July 29, 2024, Moving Defendant received Plaintiff’s objection-only response. (Decl. of Horowitz ¶3, Exh. 2.) Moving Defendant now moves to compel further responses.

Moving Defendant’s motion to compel further Code-compliant responses from Plaintiff to RFP 2, Request No. 27 is granted. Plaintiff seeks to recover his attorneys fees as an element of damages in this lawsuit thereby rendering documents concerning such fees discoverable. (Byers v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1006, reh’g denied (May 30, 2024).) Moving Defendant’s instant amended motion excludes confidential attorney work product information from the document request by requesting further responses with attorney work-product information redactions. (Decl. of Clayton ¶¶3-5, Exh. 4.) Plaintiff is ordered to provide Code-compliant responses to RFP 2, Request No. 27, subject to attorney work-product information redactions, within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,460.00 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Employee Justice Legal Group, PC. The Court notes time spent meeting and conferring, including preparing for and attending an IDC is not compensable on an attorneys’ fees motion because meeting and conferring and attending an IDC is required on this motion by statute and by the rules of this department, respectively.

The Court awards sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.310(h) in the reduced amount of $1,110.00, calculated as follows:

([2 hours to prepare instant motion + 1 hour to review opposition and prepare reply + 0.5 hour to attend hearing on motion] x $300.00/hour) + $60.00 filing fee = $1,110.00

The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Plaintiff and his attorney, Employee Justice Legal Group, PC, within 20 days of this order.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court