Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV46429, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46429    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to discovery are MOOT.  Defendants are sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,400.00 per motion (i.e, $2,800.00 total) payable within 30 days.

On 12/20/2021, Pierre Demian (Plaintiff) initiated this action. On 3/11/2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Montebello Unified School District, the Montebello Unified School District Board of Education, Anthony Martinez, Marisol Madrigal, Joanna Flores, Edgar Cisneros, Alejandro Ramirez, Jr., and Jennifer Gutierrez (collectively, Defendants), alleging violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

            On 8/19/2022, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference (IDC).

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to his Form Interrogatives and Requests for Production (RFPs).

Timeliness

            Defendants argue the motions are untimely. Given that Defendants not only had an opportunity to substantively oppose the motions, but did so, the Court finds no prejudice will result by considering the motions on the merits. Accordingly, the Court declines to deny the motions on grounds of untimeliness. 

Discussion

            In opposition, Defendants argue that they served substantive responses and documents responsive to all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests on 12/17/2022, thereby rendering these motions moot.

            In reply, Plaintiff agrees that the only issue before the Court at this time is sanctions: “Defendants have also just recently (December 17) served supplemental discovery responses for all Defendants and every interrogatory and RFP, thus the only issue remaining for the Court is the imposition of sanctions for Defendants’ discovery failures, as the Parties will have to meet and confer over the propriety of the new supplemental responses.” (Reply, fn. 2, original emphasis.)

 However, Plaintiff argues that sanctions remain warranted because of Defendants’ conduct with regard to production and supplemental responses.

As for production, the Board of Education and Individual Defendants have yet to produce any documents, and Defendants’ 12/17/2022 production was merely a reproduction of documents that had already been produced in a PRA request, many of which are not responsive to these RFPS. (Reply, 2: 2-8.) Plaintiff further argues that “[a]t minimum, Defendants have not even begun to search for any ESI documents as they have yet to respond to Plaintiff’s proposed search terms and custodians, and documents related to most of the RFP categories have not been responded to.” (Ibid.)

            Moreover, as for supplemental responses, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ opposition is misleading in that “Defendants also waited until the eleventh hour (December 17) to finally serve supplemental discovery responses for all Defendants for every interrogatory and RFP propounded, and are now using them to feign that they have always been in compliance.” (Reply, 2: 10-13.)

            Because, as Plaintiff notes, the parties will have to meet and confer over the propriety of the new supplemental responses, the only issue before the Court here is the imposition of sanctions for Defendants’ discovery conduct.

            The Court concludes that sanctions are appropriate here. It was clear that Defendants’ discovery responses were deficient as early as 8/19/2022. Despite this, supplemental responses were not served until 12/17/2022, thereby all but ensuring that Plaintiff would not have adequate time to review and analyze them prior to filing a reply. As a result, not only has this motion been required to move forward, but it is very likely that additional motion practice will be required once review of the supplemental responses has been completed. Defendants have not provided any substantial justification for this delay.

            However, in considering a sanctions award, the Court finds that the sanctions amount should be mitigated by the fact that Plaintiff does not appear to have made any effort to narrow the scope of requests. As noted in the IDC, the Court agrees with Defendants that the scope of some requests appear to be overbroad.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to discovery are moot. Defendants are sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,400.00 per motion. ($350/hr x 4 hrs.)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.