Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV09605, Date: 2025-03-18 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.

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Regents of the University of California (“Defendant”)

This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff filed this action on April 28, 2023. On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint, following a stipulation and order to amend the pleading, against Defendant for (1) discrimination, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (5) retaliation, (6) harassment and (7) failure to prevent harassment.

On January 22, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel with a request for sanctions. On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition and supporting declaration representing that he served timely objections on July 31, 2023. Plaintiff also contends Defendant did not meet and confer adequately before filing the motion to compel, failed to include a separate statement, did not request sanctions against a specific person and requested excessive and unreasonably inflated sanctions.

On March 11, 2025, Defendant filed his reply and supporting declaration stating that Plaintiff did not object to the October 18, 2024 corrected First Set of Special Interrogatories (“Corrected Special Interrogatories”). Defendant attached a declaration showing that Plaintiff did not provide responses to the Corrected Special Interrogatories, but did provide objections to the previous set of special interrogatories. Defendant also argues that its sanctions are directed at Plaintiff and his counsel as shown on pages five and six of his Reply.

“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a¿motion¿to¿compel¿responses is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet¿and¿confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Because no verified responses have been provided to the instant discovery request and Defendant filed a motion to compel, not a motion to compel further, there is no requirement to meet and confer.

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a); 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); 2030.290; 2031.300.)

Defendant argues the Court should grant is motion because “Plaintiff has not provided any written responses to the [Corrected Special Interrogatories]” and “Plaintiffs responses … were due on or before November 20, 2024.” (Covington Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8.)

Here, Defendant served the Corrected Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff on October 18, 2024. (Covington Decl. ¶ 5, Exhs. 1-2.) Plaintiff has not responded to the Corrected Special Interrogatories as of March 11, 2025. (Reply p. 1:11-13.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant the Regents of the University of California’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendant also requests that this Court award sanctions in the amount of $2,088.

Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a sanctionable misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, subd. (a); 2023.010, subd. (d).) If a motion to compel a party to respond to interrogatories or demand for production is successful, the court must impose a monetary sanction against that party unless the sanction is unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2023.030, subd. (a); 2030.290, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The monetary sanction includes the moving party’s reasonable expenses, such as attorney’s fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 subd. (a).)

As discussed above, Plaintiff did not provide verified responses to Defendants’ Corrected Special Interrogatories. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must award sanctions for such actions, because these actions qualify as engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant seeks $2,088 in monetary sanctions. (Covington Decl. ¶ 9.) This includes “2.5 hours researching, drafting and revising” this instant motion, and an anticipated 1.5 hours for the reply and preparing for this hearing. (Covington Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel’s normal hourly rate is $522. (Covington Decl. ¶ 9.)

The Court finds Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.¿The Court also reduces the time spent preparing the initial motion to 1.0 hours, preparing the reply to 0.5 hours and attending the hearing to 0.5 hours. Therefore, the total time spent on this motion would be 2.0 hours.

In addition, Defendant’s counsel provides information justifying their rate of $522/hour. (Covington Decl. ¶ 9.) Given the hourly rate, the Court will grant monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,044.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for Sanctions in the amount of $1,044.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court