Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV47238, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47238    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff Banita Barnes initiated this employment discrimination action against Defendants Western University of Health Sciences and Suzanne Adolphson. On February 18, 2022, Defendant Western University propounded special and form interrogatories to Plaintiff. After multiple extensions, Plaintiff’s responses were due on July 8, 2022. Plaintiff did not serve responses by July 8. On July 13, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel responses to the interrogatories. On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff uploaded her responses to a mutually shared link. Notwithstanding the late responses, Defendant maintains its motion to request monetary sanctions.

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).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant acknowledges receipt of Plaintiff’s responses served on August 3, 2022. (Lomedico Reply Decl. ¶ 9.) However, despite Plaintiff’s eventual service of her responses, her delay in doing so still necessitated this motion. Thus, sanctions are warranted.

Plaintiff argues that sanctions are unjustified because “Plaintiff’s counsel were not aware that the discovery responses had not been served by the associate attorney, or her paralegal, before the attorney left her employment with the firm, and that the due date had not been properly calendared by the paralegal.” (Opp. 5:22-27.) However, that is an internal issue and does not provide substantial justification for depriving Defendant of the necessary discovery to establish its case. Plaintiff’s counsel essentially admits that the negligence of one of its attorneys caused the delay. This precisely justifies sanctions.  

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $2,370, which is unreasonably high. (See Lomedico Decl. ¶ 10.) Based on the simplicity of the motion, the Court finds that 4 hours at a rate of $385 per hour is reasonable. (See ibid.) Adding a $60 filing fee, this amounts to $1,600.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Western University’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is GRANTED. The Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,600, to be paid within 30 days.