Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV03170, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03170    Hearing Date: December 14, 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 18, 2022, Defendant Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. (“DWWS”) filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses and document production in relation to interrogatories and requests for production. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs failed to verify their responses and did not produce documents in accordance with their statements of compliance.

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).)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection . . . in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(a).)

DISCUSSION

            The only defective discovery response addressed in Defendant’s motions is Acevedo’s response to RFP No. 63, wherein he stated that he “previously has or will produce all non-privileged documents which are in his possession, custody, or control which are responsive to this request.” (Def.’s Sep. Stmnt. re Acevedo 2:26-3:4.) This response is defective because Acevedo has either produced all responsive documents, or he will, but not both.

            Beyond this, both Plaintiffs’ responses to RFPs are sufficient in that they promise to produce all responsive documents in Plaintiffs’ possession. The issue is that Plaintiffs have not actually provided the documents. While Plaintiffs argue that the motions are moot because they have provided supplemental responses, it appears they still have not produced documents. (Def.’s Reply re Sanchez 3:8-12; Def.’s Reply re Acevedo 3:4-10.) Additionally, the motion is not moot because Plaintiffs’ unjustified delay still necessitated these motions. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408.)

            As to the verifications, Defendant acknowledges receiving them after these motions were filed. Defendant’s skepticism regarding the veracity of the verifications is by itself not a reason to compel Plaintiffs to provide amended verifications. However, the verifications to RFP Set Two and RFP Set Three appear to be improper because Acevedo dated them January 2021, before the requests were even propounded in July 2021. (Reply 4:3-10.)

            Sanctions are warranted. The reasonable amount is 4 hours at $345 per hour, for a total of $1,380. (See Urey Decl. re Sanchez ¶ 19; Urey Decl. re Acevedo ¶ 20.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel further responses and document production are GRANTED in part. Within 10 days, Plaintiffs are to provide responsive documents pursuant to their statements of compliance, and Acevedo must provide amended verifications to RFP Sets Two and Three. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the amount of $1,380, to be paid within 30 days.