Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV07438, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07438    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance through monetary, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions is DENIED.   

On 3/1/2022, Plaintiff Mario Rivas (Plaintiff) filed suit against California ‘Z’ Cars, Inc., alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to investigate; (7) violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) violation of California Labor Code section 98.6; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (10) failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.

            On 12/9/2022, the Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s initial discovery and issue sanctions payment within 30 days of entry of that order.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s order in the form of either evidentiary, terminating, or monetary sanctions.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that an order compelling compliance is necessary because: (1) Defendant have not fully complied with the Court’s 12/9/2022 order, and have not produced a single responsive document to Plaintiff’s RFPs; and (2) Defendant did not issue a sanctions payment until 1/18/2022.

            In opposition, Defendants contend that they have substantially complied with the Court’s order. First, Defendants contend that they served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery on 1/6/2023, and delivered bate-stamps documents to Plaintiff’s attorney on 4/11/2023. Defendants admit that they mailed the sanctions payment two-days late, and apologize for that delay.

            After review, the Court agrees that neither additional monetary or terminating sanctions are appropriate here. The proper mechanism for challenging discovery responses is a motion to compel further, not a motion for sanctions. Moreover, while the Court instructs Defendant to obey deadlines moving forward, the Court finds that a two-day delay does not amount to willful noncompliance.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance through monetary, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions is denied.   

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 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.