Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV09767, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09767    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Jennifer Linares filed this action against Toluca Lake Collective, Inc. on March 21, 2022. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on November 3, 2022, asserting wage violations and Labor Code penalties, as well as a PAGA claim on behalf of other aggrieved employees.  

            On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to her Requests for Production Set One. Defendant filed its opposition on September 25, 2023. Plaintiff filed her reply on November 9, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to RFPs, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)  

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the issue informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Gutierrez Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant initially responded to the RFPs on September 20, 2022. (Gutierrez Decl., Ex. B.) The responses asserted various objections, including attorney-client privilege, and then stated that “Defendant will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request that are in Defendant’s care, custody, or control.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff sent meet and confer correspondence on December 29, 2022 to discuss various discovery, including the RFPs at issue. (Id., Ex. C.) On July 24, 2023, Defendant confirmed that it was “working on” supplemental responses to the RFPs to provide “further factual information to evaluate the merits of the privilege claim.” (Id., Ex. E.) Defendant served supplemental responses on August 25, 2023. (Id., Ex. H.) However, these responses merely repeated the privilege objection and repeated that “Responding Party will produce all responsive, non-privileged, documents in its possession, custody and control.” (Ibid.) The only difference is that the supplemental responses add a phrase about conducting a “diligent search and reasonable inquiry” and reference certain documents by bates number. (Ibid.)

            The supplemental responses fail to address the privilege objection and remain vague as to whether Defendant is withholding any documents based on the privilege. The supplemental responses also fail to provide sufficient factual information to assess the privilege claim, as required by the Code and as Defendant promised to do. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1); Gutierrez Decl., Ex. E.)

            In its opposition, Defendant provides no support for its objections, including attorney-client privilege, nor does Defendant deny that its responses are defective in the manner discussed above. Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer. However, Plaintiff sent meet and confer correspondence as far back as December 2022. (Gutierrez Decl., Ex. C.) In July 2023, Defendant promised to provide supplemental responses with sufficient facts to assess the privilege claim, but its August 2023 production failed to do this. (Id., Ex. E, H.)

Defendant points out that Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on August 31, 2023, giving only one day to provide further supplemental responses before Plaintiff would file a motion to compel. (Hodge Decl., Ex. 5.) However, the August 2023 letter reminds Defendant that the parties had previously met and conferred and that Defendant had agreed to provide responses with sufficient information to evaluate the privilege claim. (Ibid.) The August 2023 letter served as a “final request” for adequate responses before Plaintiff resorted to motion practice. (Ibid.) Additionally, while Plaintiff demanded further responses by one day, she waited another month to actually file this motion. In the meantime, Plaintiff sent another correspondence on September 19, 2023, reiterating the same points made in the August 2023 letter. (Gutierrez Decl., Ex. J.) Defendant does not deny ignoring both communications. Therefore, Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement.

Defendant argues that it served further supplemental responses on September 25, 2023, after this motion was filed. (Hodge Decl. ¶ 14.) This does not moot the motion, as Defendant’s failure to provide adequate responses in the first place still necessitated the motion. Defendant has provided no substantial justification for its failure to provide proper responses even after promising to do so. Therefore, sanctions are warranted in the amount of $900.

//

//

//

//

//

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide further responses to RFP Set One within 15 days. The Court sanctions Defendant and its counsel in the total amount of $900, to be paid within 30 days.