Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV06117, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06117    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff Curtis Cash filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles, asserting a single cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5.

            On January 5, 2024, Defendant filed the instant four motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response declaration on January 19, 2024.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) The responding party also waives its objections. (Id., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)  

DISCUSSION

            Defendant served the subject discovery on June 27, 2023. (Levine Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant granted an extension to August 30, 2023 for responses. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently claimed that Defendant failed to serve Form Interrogatories – Employment. (Ibid.) Defendant believes it properly served that set, but nonetheless served it again on August 14, 2023. (Ibid.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has not received any responses, despite Plaintiff’s assurances that responses would be served by October 2023. (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff served belated responses without objection on January 19, 2024. (Selik Decl. ¶ 13.)

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied because Defendant failed to “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought” in the notice of motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Additionally, Plaintiff acted with substantial justification. (Selik Decl. ¶¶ 6-12.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve responses to the subject discovery within 15 days. Sanctions are denied.  

            Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney on August 11, 2023, reflecting his pro per status. Plaintiff has not since filed any other Substitution of Attorney even though he is currently represented by Evan Selik of McCathern LLP. Plaintiff shall file a substitution of attorney reflecting Evan Selik as his current attorney within 10 days of this order.