Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV15461, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15461    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 23, 2021, Plaintiff Benito Nolasco initiated this employment action against Defendants Superior Interlocking Pavers, Inc. and Humberto Cedano. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed June 7, 2021.

            On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant Superior Interlocking Pavers with Requests for Production, Set Two. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff then granted an extension to April 20, 2022 for Defendant to respond. (Id., ¶ 4.) Defendant did not respond by the April 20 deadline, but on May 5, Defendant agreed to produce responses without objection except as to tax returns. (Id., ¶ 7.) On May 20, Defendant served objection-only responses to the RFPs. (Id., ¶ 8.)

            On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 37-51. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

            On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to 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.” (Id., subd. (h).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant asserted the same objection to each RFP at issue:

“Responding Party objects on the grounds that the request seeks information that

is not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Responding Party objects on the

grounds that the request violates Responding Party's privacy rights under

California Constitution, Article 1, and the U.S. Constitution. The request seeks

information which is protected from disclosure by Revenue and Tax Code Section

19282. Responding party objects on the grounds that the question is overly broad,

indefinite as to time and without reasonable limitation in its scope.”

(Plntf.’s Separate Statement.)

            “While the party propounding [discovery] may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting [discovery].” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Without an opposition, Defendant fails to substantiate any of the boilerplate objections. Furthermore, by failing to respond in time, Defendant waived its objections. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

            As no substantial justification is provided, sanctions are warranted. The reasonable amount is $1,060. (See Park Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff’s claim for an additional $500 for a reply brief is unnecessary given the lack of opposition.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant Superior Interlocking Pavers, Inc. is to provide further responses to RFP Nos. 37-51 within 10 days. Objections are waived except as to privacy and privilege. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,060, to be paid within 30 days.