Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV08961, Date: 2023-03-27 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.

Case Number: 21STCV08961    Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleges: (1) breach of undivided loyalty; (2) intentional interference with contractual relations; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (5) negligence; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) intentional misrepresentation.

Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to compel responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One (“the “FROG Motion”); (2) a motion to compel responses to its Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “SPROG Motion”); (3) a motion to deem its Requests for Admissions propounded admitted (the “RFA Motion”); and (4) a motion for protective order (the “PO Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

DISCUSSION

FROG, SPROG, and RFA Motions

            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 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).)  It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion.  (Id.)  

            Plaintiff served its FROGs, SPROGs, and RFAs on Defendant Maryam Amiriandi (“Defendant”) on May 31, 2022.  (Declaration of Dublas Panigua (“Panigua Decl.”) ¶ 3.)  Despite several extensions, Defendant had not served responses prior to Plaintiff filing the Motions.  (See Panigua Decl. ¶¶ 4-11.) 

As they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the FROG, SPROG, and RFA Motions.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  Defendant is ordered to submit responses to the discovery requests discussed in the FROG and SPROG Motions within 20 days of this order.  The RFAs at issue in the RFA Motion are deemed admitted.

PO Motion

CCP section 2017.010 provides that, generally, any party may obtain discovery regarding any relevant matter that is not privileged.  Discovery is relevant if it is itself admissible in evidence or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.)  Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.  (Id.)

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion made by any person described in CCP section 1987.1, subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare.  (CCP § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

CCP section 2025.420 provides that a court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.  (CCP § 2025.420, subd. (b).)  The protective order may order any number of actions listed in CCP section 2025.420, subdivision (b).  In general, the court may order the deposition not be taken, limit the scope and length of depositions, and alter the methods of discovery.  (CCP § 2025.420, subd. (b)(1)-(b)(16).)

The burden of proof is generally on the party seeking the protective order to show¿good cause¿for whatever order is sought.¿¿(Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)¿¿The concept of good cause requires a showing of specific facts demonstrating undue burden and justifying the relief sought. ¿(See¿Goodman v. Citizens Life & Casualty Ins. Co.¿(1967) 253 Cal.App.3d 807, 819.) ¿The facts are normally established in declarations by counsel for the party seeking the protective order.  (Id.)¿¿The declaration must contain competent evidence, i.e., first-hand knowledge of the facts.¿¿(Id.)

Plaintiff seeks a protective order that permits nonparty Netsmart Technologies, Inc. (“Netsmart”) to disclose patient records (limited to patient names and date of birth) so that it may comply with federal regulations.  (Panigua Decl. ¶ 2.)  The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the issuance of a qualified protected order and GRANTS the PO Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  

Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff seeks $1,128.33 in monetary sanctions per Motion in connection to the FROG, SPROG, and RFA Motions.  This amount represents: (1) two hours preparing each of the moving papers at a rate of $350 per hour; (2) an anticipated one hour preparing reply papers and attending the hearing; and (3) a $61.65 filing fee and anticipated $16.68 fee.  (Paniagua Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) 

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff sanctions in the reasonable amount of $884.95, which represents two hours drafting the FROG, SPROG, and RFA Motions collectively at an hourly rate of $350 per hour and $184.95 in filing fees.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  Defendant is ordered to pay this amount within 20 days of this order.

             Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

       Dated this 27th day of March 2023