Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV14200, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14200    Hearing Date: June 21, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Afifa Soliman filed this action against Defendants Santa Maria Pharmacy, Inc. and Marcos Soliman, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) elder abuse, (3) failure to pay minimum wages, (4) violation of Labor Code section 226, (5) violation of Labor Code section 1198.5, (6) unfair business practices, and (7) fraud.

            On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant eight motions to compel discovery responses from both Defendants. Defendants have not opposed the motions.

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

            Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on February 21, 2024. (Galliver Decl. ¶ 2.) Pursuant to Defendants’ request, Plaintiff granted an extension to April 5, 2024. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defendants failed to respond by April 5, 2024, but Plaintiff granted a further extension to April 26, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.) Defendants did not respond by April 26, 2024. (Id., ¶ 13.)

            In her reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that she received Defendants’ belated responses after the motions were filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff concedes that the motions are moot to the extent they seek to compel Defendants’ responses to the subject discovery. However, Plaintiff maintains the motions for purposes of sanctions.

The Court agrees that sanctions are warranted because Defendants provide no substantial justification for their failure to timely respond to discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have spent 3.5 hours drafting the eight motions. (Galliver Decl. ¶ 14(a).) The Court finds this reasonable. No additional hours are necessary, given the lack of opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel claims an hourly rate of $500. (Id., ¶ 14(d).) The Court reduces this to $400 per hour given the simplicity of the motions and lack of opposition. Plaintiff additionally incurred a $60 filing fee for each motion, totaling $480. Therefore, sanctions are awarded in the total amount of $1,880.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are GRANTED. The Court sanctions Defendants and their counsel in the total amount of $1,880, to be paid within 30 days of this order.