Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV15631, Date: 2025-06-09 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.

This action arises out of an employment relationship. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Moss Management Services, Inc. and Cindy Gray (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging: (1) violation of Labor Code sections 233 and 2698; (2) Violation of Labor Code sections 98.6 and 2698; (3) violation of Labor Code sections 226 and 2698; (4) Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”); (5) failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages; and (6) failure to pay wages due at time of termination.

On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to requests for production (“RFPs”) (the “Motion”). On May 27, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply (the “Reply”).

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

A court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

A motion to compel further responses to RFPs must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (CCP, § 2031.310 subd. (c).)¿The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RFPs Nos. 1-11 and 13-15 on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide Code-compliant responses to the requests. (Mot., p. 3:10-12.) In the Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion is time-barred and that the documents Plaintiff seeks pertain to other employees and are not discoverable because Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges only an individual PAGA claim, not a representative one. (Opp., pp. 4:10-7:9.) In Reply, Plaintiff asserts that the parties agreed to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel through to March 15, 2025. (Reply, p. 2:20-21, Exs. A-K.)

Plaintiff propounded RFPs, set one, on Defendant on October 10, 2023. (Opp., p. 3:11-12, Walker Decl., Ex. 1.) Defendant served responses on November 28, 2023. (Opp., p. 3:12, Walker Decl., Exs. 2-3) The parties agreed to extend the motion deadline to February 1, 2024. (Reply, Ex. A.) They subsequently agreed to multiple additional extensions. (Reply, Exs. B-J.) The final agreed upon deadline for filing a motion to compel was March 15, 2025. (Reply, Ex. K.) Thus, the Motion is timely.

Upon review, however, Plaintiff has not met his burden to set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought in this Motion.

RFPs Nos. 1-10 request documents related to Plaintiff’s wage claims. (Sep. Statement, pp. 2:9-14:11.) In response to RFPs Nos 1-9, Defendant stated that it “agrees to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request that are in its possession, custody, and/or control.” (Sep. Statement, pp. 2:9-14:11.) In response to RFP No. 10, Defendant stated “After a reasonable and diligent inquiry, Responding Party did not locate any non-privileged documents responsive to this request; and upon information and belief, such documents never existed.” Defendant asserts that it “did not withhold any documents pertaining to Plaintiff subject to privilege or any other basis.” (Response to Sep. Statement, pp. 4:12-31:12.) Plaintiff’s objections appear overly technical. He does not point to any documents or materials not produced in response to these requests. Defendant appears to have adequately responded and produced the documents Plaintiff is seeking.

Plaintiff has not met his burden to set forth facts showing the relevance of the discovery sought in RFP Nos. 11, 13, 14 or 15. These RFPs seek documents and information pertaining to non-party employees and are thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. (Sep. Statement, pp. 15:19-20:19.)

The court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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, § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Defendant requests sanctions in the total amount of $6,000.00 based upon counsels’ rates of $300/hour and $255/hour for 20 hours spent preparing the Opposition through the hearing on this matter. (Walker Decl., ¶ 63.) The Court will grant sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,200.00.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,200.00 to Defendant within 30 days 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