Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCV38742, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Kaden Sanchez (“Sanchez”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order for monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,202.20 plus additional daily sanctions in the amount of $500 accruing from the date of this Court’s anticipated order on this motion until compliance is achieved, as well as the imposition of terminating sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, and issue sanctions. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2023.030.) Plaintiff brings this motion on the grounds that Defendants Turner’s Operations, Inc. and Turner’s Outdoors, Inc. (collectively, “Turners”) (collectively, “Defendants”) have failed to comply with the Court’s February 6, 2023, Order to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 2 by February 26, 2023. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.) Plaintiff also moves on the grounds that over a year ago Defendants agreed to mediate this case, and yet have refused to engage in the process of selecting a mediator or reserving a mediation date. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)

On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed its operative complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants for civil penalties under PAGA, alleging that Defendants: (1) failed to provide meal periods; (2) failed to provide rest periods; (3) failed to pay premium wages for missed meal and or rest periods; (4) failed to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; (5) failed to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked; (6) failed to pay overtime at the correct rate; (7) failed to pay double time at the correct rate; (8) failed to reimburse for all necessary business expenses; (10) failed to provide accurate written wage statements; and (11) failed to pay all final wages following separation of employment. On December 21, 2021, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 9, 2024. Defendants filed their opposition on January 25, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on January 31, 2024.

(a) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), if a party then fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (c), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

On February 6, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance, ordering Defendant to produce the unredacted contact information, timekeeping, and payroll data for all aggrieved employees during the applicable limitations period. Despite this Court’s order being in effect for nearly a year (and the Court’s compliance date for this order being February 27, 2023), Defendant has still not produced the payroll data for all aggrieved employees.

Defendant has only produced anonymous timekeeping records for aggrieved employees but has continued to refuse to provide payroll records for aggrieved employees. (Decl. of Pao ¶¶18, 36, 43, Exhs. C, J, L.) Plaintiff argues he is unable to prepare his case for trial without the required payroll data for aggrieved employees. (Motion, pg. 14.) Defendants’ opposition concedes that it has not produced any payroll records to Plaintiff. (See Decl. of DeBus ¶5.) Defendants have not complied with this Court’s order to produce timekeeping and payroll records and have failed to demonstrate in their opposition that the parties entered into an agreement to modify this Court’s order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is appropriate.

This Court has power under C.C.P. §§2030.300(d)-(e), 2031.310(h)-(i), 2023.030(a), and 2023.010(d)-(h) to award monetary sanctions on the basis that Defendant and defense counsel fail to provide any Court ordered supplemental responses.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced amount of $8,202.20.

The Court declines to award non-monetary sanctions on the basis that there is no reason to believe monetary sanctions will not be an adequate means of deterring further non-compliance with this Court’s orders.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendants is granted in the reduced amount of $8,202.20. Sanctions are payable within ten days.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court