Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV13286, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants TEXAS PENCCO, INC. and PENCCO, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

This case arises from an employment relationship. On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff Dayvid McCrary (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action: (1) Disability Discrimination under FEHA – Government Code section 12940(a); (2) Failure to Accommodate under FEHA – Government Code section 12940(m); (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process under FEHA – Government Code section 12940(n); (4) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages; (8) Failure to Pay Wages Upon Ending Employment; (9) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (10) Failure to Produce Employee Documents in Violation of Labor Code section 1198.5; (11) Failure to Produce Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code section 226(b); and (12) Unfair Business Practices.

On July 25, 2024, Defendants filed the following discovery motions: Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dayvid McCrary’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs Motion”); Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dayvid McCrary’s Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One (“SIs Motion”); Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dayvid McCrary’s Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One (“FIs – Employment Motion”); and on July 26, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Dayvid McCrary’s Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One (“FIs – General Motion”) (collectively, “Motions”). No opposition to the Motions has been filed.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Production (Set No. 1) (“RFPs”) on November 10, 2023. (Declaration of Rosely George in Support of RFPs Motion.) Plaintiff did not serve responses to the RFPs as of the date of filing of the Motions on July 25, 2024. (Id.) Defendants now move for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to the RFPs.

Accordingly, the RFPs Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the RFPs, without objections, and to produce all responsive documents, within 20 days of this Order.

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“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).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 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.)

Here, Defendants served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SIs”), Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One (“FIs – Employment”) and Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One (“FIs – General”) on November 10, 2023. (Declaration of Rosely George in Support of RFPs Motion; Declaration of Rosely George in Support of FIs – Employment Motion; Declaration of Rosely George in Support of SIs – General Motion.) Plaintiff did not serve responses to the SIs and FIs – Employment and FIs – General as of the date of filing of the motions on July 25, 2024 and July 26, 2024. (Id.) Defendants now move for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses to the SIs, FIs – Employment and FIs - General.

Accordingly, the SIs Motion, FIs – Employment Motion and FIs – General Motion are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the SIs, FIs – Employment and FIs - General, without objections, within 20 days of this Order.

“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, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendants are seeking monetary sanctions in the amount of $470 for each of the four Motions, representing two hours of attorney time at a rate of $205 per hour, plus $60 filing fee. As the Motions are unopposed, the Court finds no substantial justification for the delay in responses, and thus sanctions are warranted. Since the Motions are unopposed, however, the Court exercises its discretion and reduces the monetary sanctions to $265 for each motion, representing $205 in attorneys’ fees, plus $60 filing fees.

Plaintiff is thus ordered to pay $1,060 in monetary sanctions to Defendant within 30 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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court