Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 19STCV26619 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and serve at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

This action arises out of an employment relationship. On December 22, 2022, Moving Defendant filed: Plaintiff’s currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges 10 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship.

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed four motions concerning discovery propounded on Defendant Centurion Protective Service (“Centurion”) (collectively, the “Motions”): (1) a Motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (General), Set One (the “FROG Motion”); (2) a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (Employment) (the “Employment FROG Motion”); (3) a motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “SPROG Motion”); and (4) a motion to compel responses to Requests for Production, Set One (the “RFP Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).[1] The Motions additionally request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel based on their failure to comply with the discovery process.

Under CCP section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.)

Under CCP section 2031.300, subdivision (b), where there has been no timely response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

The discovery requests at issue in the Motions were served on October 31, 2022. (Declaration of Luke Manzo (“Manzo Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)[2] When Plaintiff did not timely provide responses, Moving Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff's counsel to discuss the outstanding responses. (See Manzo Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.) Plaintiff’s counsel disputed that Plaintiff was required to respond to the discovery requests. (See id.) As of December 22, 2022, when Moving Defendant filed the Motions, Plaintiff had not served responses (or written objections) to any of the discovery requests. (See Manzo Decl. ¶ 11.)

As they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motions. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to the discovery requests discussed in the Motions within 20 days of this order.

In connection to the Interrogatories Motions, Moving Defendant requests $612.50 in monetary sanctions per Motion. (Manzo Decl. ¶ 17.) Moving Defendant’s counsel declares that he spent: (1) 1.5 hours attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing the Motions; (2) 1.3 hours preparing each Interrogatories Motion; (3) anticipated spending four hours drafting reply papers and two hours attending the hearing at a rate of $425 per hour; and (4) incurred a $60 filing fee for each Motion. (See Manzo Decl. ¶¶ 15-17.)

In connection to the RFP Motion, Moving Defendant requests $4,122.50 in monetary sanctions. (RFP Manzo Dec. ¶ 17.) Moving Defendant’s counsel declares that he spent: (1) 1.5 hours attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing the RFP Motion; (2) 8.2 hours preparing the RFP Motion; (3) anticipated spending four hours drafting reply papers and two hours attending the hearing at a rate of $425 per hour; and (4) incurred a $60 filing fee. (See RFP Manzo Decl. ¶¶ 15-17.)

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Moving Defendant monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,515, which represents three hours spent on the Motions collectively at a rate of $425 per hour and a total of $240 in filing fees. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered to pay this amount within 20 days of this order.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Court refers to the FROG, Employment FROG, and SPROG Motions collectively as the “Interrogatories Motions.”

[2] The Motions rely on the same underlying facts. All citations to the Manzo Declaration refer to the identical declarations filed in connection to each Interrogatories Motion unless otherwise noted.