Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 19STCV33776, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV33776    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 11

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Compel Re: 19STCV33776 (Li)

Date:                           1/10/24

Time:                          2:30 pm

Moving Party:           Xiaoke Li (“Plaintiff”)

Opposing Party:        None

Department:              11

Judge:                         David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant CTour Holiday LLC (“CTour”) to provide responses to special interrogatories (set one) is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for a monetary sanction is denied without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

“This is a ‘wage and hour’ putative class action.”  (6/2/23 Ruling Re: Motion to Lift Arbitration Stay, p. 1.)

“On 10/1/20, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration.”  (Ibid.)

“On 1/26/21, Judge Ann Jones granted the motion to compel and stayed the case pending the completion of arbitration.”  (Ibid.)

“On 12/30/22, the arbitration provider emailed an initial invoice to the parties.”  (Ibid.)

“On 3/15/23, the arbitration provider confirmed that it had not received payment from Defendants.”  (Ibid.)

On 4/17/23, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the arbitration stay.

On 6/2/23, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion.

On 7/18/23, Plaintiff served special interrogatories (set one) on Defendant CTour.

On 11/6/23, the Court held an informal discovery conference.  CTour agreed to respond to the special interrogatories without objections by 11/20/23, and the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel in the event CTour failed to provide timely responses.

On 12/13/23, Plaintiff filed the motion to compel.

Now, the Court considers whether the motion should be granted.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel should be granted because:

* it is unopposed;

* CTour failed to provide responses by either the original deadline (8/21/23) or the deadline set at the informal discovery conference (11/20/23);

* to date, CTour still has not provided responses; and

* “[f]ailing to respond” to special interrogatories “within the time limit waives most objections to the interrogatories, including claims of privilege and ‘work product’ protection[,]” and gives “the propounding party” the right to “move for an order compelling responses[.]”  (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2023 Update) ¶¶ 8:1030, 8:1137; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subds. (a), (b).)

Plaintiff’s request for a $1,860 monetary sanction against CTour and defense counsel is denied without prejudice.  The request can be reraised if CTour fails to comply with this ruling.