Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV03170, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03170    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Jose Luis Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and Manuel Acevedo Fernandez (“Acevedo”) filed this action against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., and Rona Kay (“Kay”), alleging violations of FEHA, wrongful discharge, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The operative First Amended Complaint, filed January 29, 2020, adds Defendants Diana Eid (“Eid”) and Janae Bueno (“Bueno”) and asserts additional FEHA claims.

            Plaintiffs worked for Disney from the 1980s until 2019, when they were terminated. Plaintiffs were terminated for watching pornography at work. Plaintiffs deny watching pornography and maintain that Acevedo was merely showing off pictures of his cats to Sanchez. Plaintiffs claim that their terminations were motivated by bias against their sexual orientation, race, age, and disability.

            On November 15, 2022, Defendants Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (“WDPR”), The Walt Disney Company (“TWDC”), and Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. (“DWWS”) filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to supplemental discovery. Plaintiffs did not respond at all to the subject discovery.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs do not deny failing to respond to the subject discovery. Their only contention is that Defendants cannot move to compel supplemental responses. However, Plaintiffs cite no authority for this proposition. There is no basis to distinguish between initial requests and supplemental requests for purposes of a party’s obligation to respond to discovery under the Act. No substantial justification is provided for Plaintiffs’ failure to respond. The fact that Plaintiffs had no further information to provide does not mean they did not have to respond.

            Given the simplicity of the issues involved, the reasonable amount of sanctions is $1,035, representing 3 hours at $345 per hour. (See Urey Decl. ¶ 9.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to compel responses to supplemental discovery is GRANTED. Defendants are to produce responses to the subject requests within 10 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $1,035, to be paid within 30 days.