Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 20STCV46212, Date: 2023-12-20 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.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center (“Defendant”)

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges claims that arise out of an employment relationship.

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to deem Requests for Admissions admitted (the “RFA Motion”); and (2) a motion to compel further responses (the “MTCF”) (collectively, the “Motions”). The RFA Motion concerns Requests for Admissions, Set Two (the “RFAs”). The MTCF concerns: Requests for Production (“RFPs”), sets one through three; Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) – General, Set One; FROG – Employment, Set One; and RFA, Set One.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2033.290, subdivision (a), on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that either of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.230, subd. (a).) As to requests for admission: (1) if only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered; and (2) if an objection is made to request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. (CCP § 2033.230, subds. (a)-(b).)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 234-35.) To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

Under CCP section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Unless the propounding party gives notice of a motion to compel further responses within 45 days of the service of the verified response, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses to a request for admission, interrogatory, or request for production. (See CCP §§ 2033.290, subd. (c), 2030.300, subd (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).)

Defendant provided responses to RFP, Set One, RFA, Set One, Employment FROG, Set One, and General FROG, Set One on October 19, 2021. (Declaration of Cecile Williams (“Williams Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Amended RFA, Set Two was served on July 11, 2023. (Williams Decl. ¶ 14.) Amended RFP, Set Two was served on September 8, 2023. (Williams Decl. ¶ 18.) The SPROGs were served on November 10, 2023. (Williams Decl. ¶ 26.) RFP, Set Three was served on October 2, 2023. (Declaration of Declaration of Joel Glaser (“Glaser Decl.”) ¶ 14.)

Upon review of the timelines for the various discovery requests at issue, the Court finds that the MTCF was not timely filed. The MTCF was filed well beyond the 45-day deadline with respect to RFP, Set One; RFA, Set One; Employment FROG; Set One, and General FROG, Set One.

With respect to the remaining discovery requests, the evidence submitted in support of the Motion suggests that the MTCF was filed while the parties were still engaged in the meet and confer process. In a letter sent to Defendant on November 27, 2023, Plaintiff detailed her issues with Defendant’s responses and demanded further responses by December 5, 2023. (Williams Decl., Exhibit AB.) Defendant provided further responses on December 5, 2023. (Glaser Decl. ¶ 16.) [1]

Under CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff received substantive responses to RFA, Set Two on November 21, 2023. (RFA Williams Decl. ¶ 7.) There is no basis, as a result, for bringing the RFA Motion. To the extent that the RFA Motion seeks further responses, it was not brought pursuant to the correct statute. (See CCP § 2033.290.) The Court therefore DENIES the RFA Motion.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,446 for opposing the Motions. This amount represents: (1) six hours responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests at a rate of $250 per hour; (2) 7.2 hours preparing the opposition papers; (3) an anticipated 4.4 hours reviewing the reply papers and attending the hearing; and (4) $60 in filing costs. (Glaser Decl. ¶ 34.)

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Defendant monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,000, which represents four hours drafting the opposition papers at a rate of $250 per hour. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant’s counsel this amount within 20 days of the date of this order.

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] Although the MTCF contends that Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further, Defendant provides evidence that it agreed to extend the deadline to file until December 22, 2023. (See Glaser Decl. ¶ 12, Exhibit 16.)