Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV23427, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23427    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Esmeralda Cordova (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Claudia Gonzalez and Emma Garcia (collectively “Moving Defendants”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

             This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff sues Defendants Bar El Restaurante El Norteño Bar, Claudia Gonzalez, Emma Garcia and Does 3 through 100 pursuant to a September 27, 2023 complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to pay for rest periods not provided; (3) failure to pay for meal periods not provided; (4) inaccurate wage statements; (5) failure to pay minimum wage; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) disability discrimination; (8) failure to prevent discrimination; (9) harassment due to disability; (10) hostile work environment in violation of Gov. Code § 12940; (11) failure to accommodate physical disability in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(m); (12) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(n); (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (14) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (15) unfair competition.

            On February 10, 2025 Plaintiff filed six motions to compel: (1) motion to compel Gonzalez to respond to request for production (“RFPs”); (2) motion to compel Garcia to respond to RFPs; (3) motion to compel Gonzalez to respond to general form interrogatories (“FIs”); (4) motion to compel Garcia to respond to general FIs; (5) motion to compel Gonzalez to respond to employment FIs and; (6) motion to compel Garcia to respond to employment FIs (collectively, the “Motions”). All Motions include requests for sanctions.

            On April 30, 2025, Moving Defendants filed an opposition (“Opposition”) to the Motions.                        

DISCUSSION

            A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the grounds that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civil Procedure “CCP”) §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  The discovering party can also make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b); CCP, § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovering party must make the motion. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (CCP §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]); § 2033.070 [requests for admission])

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (CCP §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce] 2033.250, subds. (a), (b) [requests for admission]); and

(3) No timely response. (CCP §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce] § 2033.280, subd. (b) [requests for admission])

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; CCP § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

            The RFPs and FIs were served via email on October 9, 2024. (Lipeles Decl., ¶¶ 8-10, Exs. A-F.) Plaintiff and Moving Defendants agreed to a response deadline of January 10, 2025. (Lipeles Decl., ¶¶ 19-20, Exs. I-J.) In the Opposition, Moving Defendants argue that the Motions should be denied because they were not timely filed. (Opp., p. 4:6-18.) The 45-day time frame they reference, however, is specific to motions to compel further discovery after receiving incomplete or inadequate discovery responses. (CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310.) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial compliance with a discovery request. The only required showing is that the responding party failed to comply as agreed. (Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.)¿As of the date of the hearing on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Moving Defendants have responded to the discovery requests. Thus, the Motions are GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce].)

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response to request for admissions is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (c); Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.)

            Plaintiff requests sanctions for the Motions in the total amount of $4,140.00 based upon counsel Kevin Lipeles’s rate of $675/hour for: (1) 2.0 hours reviewing the Motions; (2) $60 filing fee for each motion; (3) 2.0 hours anticipated for reviewing any oppositions, preparing a reply brief and attending the hearing; and based upon counsel Jala Amsellem’s rate of $750 for: (4) 1.0 hour preparing notice of Motions: (5) 2.1 hours preparing the motions to compel RFPs; (6) 3.0 hours preparing the motions to compel FIs; (7) 0.5 hours drafting declarations and combining exhibits; and (8) 4.6 hours reviewing the Motions. (Lipeles Decl., ¶ 23; Amsellem Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) As Moving Defendants filed a single Opposition to all six Motions and the Motions are largely duplicative of each other, a reduction is appropriate. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,500.00

Plaintiff’s Motions are GRANTED. Moving Defendants are ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 30 days.

Moving Defendants are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,500.00 within 30 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 12th day of May 2025