Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV20494, Date: 2024-12-09 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.

Case Number: 23STCV20494    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Life Steps Foundation, Inc. (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition or reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA; (3) Labor Code section 1102.5; and (4) Labor Code section 98.6.  On June 3, 2024, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the first, second, and fourth causes of action without leave to amend.

In relevant part, the SAC alleges: Plaintiff was employed in Defendant’s accounting department.  (SAC ¶ 6.)  After Plaintiff refused to conduct unlawful accounting practices, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to various retaliatory actions that culminated in his termination.  (SAC ¶¶ 11-21.) 

On September 17, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories (“Interrogatories Motion”) and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFP Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). 

MEET AND CONFER

The Court finds the meet and confer requirement for the Motions has been met.

TIMELINESS

            The Court also finds the motions timely.  Defendant was required to bring the Motions within 45 days of the service of verified responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties agreed in writing.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(c); 2031.310(c).)  Here, defense counsel has submitted copies of emails showing that the parties’ agreed to extend the deadline to file the Motions to September 26, 2024.  (RFP Motion, Nimoy Decl., Exhibit 6; Interrogatories Motion, Nimoy Decl., Exhibit 4.)  Defendant filed the Motions on September 17, 2024, making them timely. 

DISCUSSION

Interrogatories Motion

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One). 

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.  (CCP § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

If only a part of an interrogatory is objectionable, the remainder of the interrogatory shall be answered; and if an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege, then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated.  (CCP § 2030.240, subds. (a)-(b).)  The burden is on the party responding to discovery to justify his or her objections to such discovery.  (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

Defense counsel testifies that on June 10, 2024, Defendant propounded the interrogatories at issue on Plaintiff.  (Nimoy Decl., ¶ 4.)  The day the responses were due (on July 12, 2024), Plaintiff served objections but also stated that he will serve substantive responses by August 2, 2024.  (Nimoy Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6; Separate Statement [arguing that Plaintiff served the following objections to the interrogatories: “Plaintiff objects to the request to the extent it is vague and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is irrelevant, calls for a legal conclusion is unfairly prejudicial, invasive of privacy, subject ot [sic] taxpayer/attorney client privilege or work product doctrine”].)  Defendant granted Plaintiff additional extensions to serve supplemental responses.  (Nimoy Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)  Plaintiff, however, never served those responses as promised.  (Nimoy Decl., ¶ 10.) 

The Court finds that by failing to oppose the Interrogatories Motion, Plaintiff has failed to justify her sweeping objections or dispute that he promised to serve supplemental responses.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the request to compel further responses to the interrogatories.

Defendant seeks sanctions of $2,700 for the Interrogatories Motion.  (Nimoy Decl., ¶ 11.)  That amount represents 4.5 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers plus 1.5 hours he anticipated spending on the reply and appearing for the hearing, a total of six hours at a billing rate of $450 per hour.  (Ibid.)

Since no opposition or reply was filed, the Court GRANTS Defendant reasonable monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,250, which represents five hours at a billing rate of $450 per hour.  Plaintiff and his counsel are responsible for paying this amount within 20 days of the date of this order.

RFP Motion

Unlike a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, a motion for further responses to document production requests must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)  It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence.  “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.  (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [“Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”]; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence].)  

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to set forth specific facts establishing good cause to compel further responses to the RFPs.  “In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.”  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)  Like in Calcor, Defendant has failed to produce evidence to permit the Court to conclude the material sought was “admissible in evidence or appear[ed] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Id.; Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [identifying manner for establishing good cause under Calcor] [“To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact”].)  Defense counsel’s declaration only contains a recitation of the parties’ communications.  The declaration does not explain why further responses to the RFPs should be compelled and why the documents requested will tend to prove or disprove a fact of consequence in this action or will lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove such fact.

The Court, therefore, DENIES the RFP Motion in its entirety, including the request for sanctions. 

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 9th day of December 2024