Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV23866, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23866    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Enrique Corral

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

             This is a wrongful termination case. Plaintiff Enrique Corral (“Plaintiff’) initiated this action against Defendant Aqua Concepts (“Defendant”) on July 25, 2022. The complaint against the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) discrimination in violation of the California Family Rights Act; (2) retaliation in violation of the Family Rights Act; (3) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of the FEAH; (7) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (9) failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code § 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 16-2001 § 11; (10) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 512 & 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 16-2001 § 10; (11) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code §§ 226, 1174; (12) willful failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 203; (13) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200.

            On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the following discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two; and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Within both motions, Plaintiffs seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $6,235 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d), (h), and (i), 2023.030, and 2030.290(c).

DISCUSSION

            Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party...” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Furthermore, “the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .”  (Id.)  

            Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the request for production is made shall serve the original response to the request, unless otherwise agreed to or ordered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) A party requesting the production of documents may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, where a party fails to timely respond to a production request, the delinquent party waives all objections to production and the requesting party may seek a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) 

Merits

Here, on November 17, 2023, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant the following discovery requests by email: (1) Special Interrogatories, Set Two; and (2) Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. (Limonjyan Decld. ¶ 2.) Responses for each of these discovery requests were initially due by December 19, 2023. (Limonjyan Decls. ¶ 3.) Because of Defendant’s failure to respond by this date, Plaintiff counsel attempted to communicate with Defendant’s counsel via telephone on January 18, 2024 and via email on January 26, 2024. (Limonjyan Decls. ¶ 4.) Despite of these meet and confer attempts, Defendant failed to provide the responses or otherwise to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer attempts. It is further noted that Defendant has failed to file an opposition to show that responses have been served since the filing of these instant motions. Therefore, due to Defendant’s failure to provide responses to the subject discovery requests, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to each request without objection. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

            Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel. Plaintiff is ordered to serve complete, verified, Code-compliant responses to the subject discovery requests within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also request that Court award monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $6,235 for each motion.

            “The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to Interrogatories . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Also, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) authorizes sanctions for misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Id. §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (g) & (h).)

            Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests amounts to a misuse of the discovery process; thus, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) In terms of the amount requested, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that his hourly rate is $650 and that, in addition to the filing fee, he incurred a total of 4.5 total hours in preparing each motion and anticipates spending an additional 5 total hours reviewing Defendant’s opposition, preparing a reply, traveling to, and attending the hearing for each motion. (Limonjyan Decls. ¶ 8.) Under the circumstances, the amount requested is excessive. Thus, the Court awards sanctions in the reduced and combined amount of $1,360, consisting of 2 hours at an hourly rate of $650 and $60 in filing fees.

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is granted in the reduced and combined amount of $1,360.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve responses to these discovery requests without objections within 30 days of the date of this Order.

            Also, the requests for monetary sanctions against Defendant are GRANTED in the reduced and combined amount of $1,360. Defendant is instructed to pay jointly to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of the date of this Order. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

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 26th day of March 2024