Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21AHCV00151, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AHCV00151 Hearing Date: October 27, 2022 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: October 27, 2022 TRIAL DATE: April 11, 2022
CASE: NANCY RENAIE JOHNSON v. ALICE J KEY, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J Key Trust, ALICE J KEY TRUST, ALLISON IRBY-CRAIG, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J Key Trust, and DOES 1 – 10.
CASE NO.: 21AHCV00151
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nancy Renaie Johnson
RESPONDING PARTY: Allison Irby-Craig, as Trustee
SERVICE: Filed September 29, 2022
OPPOSITION: Untimely filed on October 24, 2022
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant Allison Irby-Craig to produce further responses to her special interrogatories and requests to produce documents.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Nancy Renaie Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) claims arising from her employment to provide care for Defendant Alice J. Key (“Key”) at her home. Plaintiff alleges that from June 2016 to November 17, 2021, she was employed to provide care and maintain Key’s household. Plaintiff alleges that she was required to work 24 hours per day, she was not allowed to take uninterrupted meal breaks or rest breaks, and that she was misclassified as an independent contractor.
Plaintiff filed this complaint on December 15, 2021, alleging seven causes of action against Defendants Alice J. Key, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J. Key Trust, Alice J Key Trust, Allison Irby-Craig, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J. Key Trust (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay the minimum wage, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to provide rest periods, (5) waiting time penalties. (6) failure to indemnify/reimburse and (7) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories and requests for production of documents is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $923.30.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310).
DISCUSSION
Special Interrogatories
Special Interrogatory No. 2: Identify the account from which PLAINTIFF was paid by the name of the financial intuition, account number, type of account, and names of all account holders.
Request for Production of Documents
Request for Production No. 1: The presently operative trust agreement or other trust instrument for the Alice J Key Trust, including any amendments and exhibits.
Application
The parties have reached an impasse in the present case regarding the discovery of documents related to the Alice J Key Trust (“Trust”). Defendant provides that she does not have access to the documents and information Plaintiff is seeking. Defendant also states that the Trust has retained its own counsel who would be able to produce the documents and information sought. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that Defendant should have access to all of the documents as the trustee of the Trust.
In her discovery responses, Defendant provides that she is unaware of the details sought or does not have possession of the requested documents. Defendant asserts that the counsel for the Trust would be the most appropriate person to produce the documents. However, Plaintiff’s counsel provides that despite his efforts to communicate with the Trust’s counsel, he has not been able to obtain the relevant discovery. (Fick Decl. ¶¶ 24-31.)
Despite Defendant’s contention that she does not have access to the responsive documents and information, it appears that as trustee, Defendant should have the means to obtain the sought-after discovery. Further, although Defendant’s counsel represents that the Trust’s counsel is the most appropriate source for the information sought, Plaintiff’s counsel provides that the Trust’s counsel has not cooperated with his attempts to obtain the documents and information.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories and requests for the production of documents is granted.
Sanctions
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $461.65 for each motion to compel further for a total of $923.30. Plaintiff’s counsel bills at a rate of $400 per hour. (Fick Decl. ¶ 42.) He is seeking one hour of work for each motion plus $61.65 for the filing fee for each motion.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), provides: “The court shall 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 a further 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.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h), outlines similar procedures for a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is granted in the amount of $923.30.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories and requests for the production of documents is granted. Defendant shall provide code complaint verified further responses within 15 days of notice of this order.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is granted in the amount of $923.30. This amount shall be paid within 30 days.
Moving party to provide notice.
Dated: October 27, 2022 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their
intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org