Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV34879, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34879    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Devyn Lewis (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Black Exclusive Security, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One), Form Interrogatories – Employment, Form Interrogatories – General, and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,766.00.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in full. Defendant is ORDERED to provide complete further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One), Form Interrogatories – Employment, Form Interrogatories – General, and Special Interrogatories, within 30 days from this order.

The Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,743.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days from this order.

Background

Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, his former employer, alleging (1) failure to provide overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify; (6) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (7) failure to issue accurate and itemized wage statements; and (8) unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On April 5, Plaintiff served the discovery requests at issue on Defendant’s former counsel. On July 28, after being granted six extensions by Plaintiff, Defendant’s former counsel served Plaintiff with the responses at issue, as well as a motion to be relieved as counsel.

On October 10, 2023, the Court granted the motion to be relieved as counsel. Defendant is now self-represented.

From July 28, 2023 to November 2, 2023, Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s former counsel and, after the former counsel was relieved, with Defendant. The parties were not able to resolve the disagreements, and Defendant in fact did not respond to Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer.

Plaintiff filed the instant motions on November 9, 2023. Defendant did not file an opposition.       

Legal Standard

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

Requests for Admission

On receipt of a response to requests for admission the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(a)(2).)   

“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 further response, 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 Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(d).)        

Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a) requires that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, a party may move to compel further responses to a form interrogatory if the other party’s answer is “evasive or incomplete.” The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form and special interrogatories. (Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) 

“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 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.

Discussion

          Plaintiff’s positions can be found in his moving papers and separate statements. The Court’s rulings on each request are set forth below.

Requests for Admission

Defendant shall provide complete, code-compliant responses to each request for admission.

Form Interrogatories – General

Defendant shall provide complete, code-compliant responses to each form interrogatory.

Form Interrogatories – Employment

Defendant shall provide complete, code-compliant responses to each form interrogatory.

Special Interrogatories

Defendant shall provide complete, code-compliant responses to each special interrogatory.

Sanctions

          Defendant responded to each of the foregoing discovery requests with copy-pasted boilerplate objections. The Court therefore finds that sanctions are appropriate.

          Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $400.00 for Baruch Kreiman. The Court finds this rate to be reasonable.

          For each of the two motions at bar, Kreiman spent 3.5 hours drafting the motion and supporting papers and anticipates spending 2.5 hours reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, and 1.0 hours preparing for and attending the hearing. Here, no opposition or reply was filed, so the Court reduces Kreiman’s hours to 4.5 hours for each of the two motions, or 9 hours total.

          The filing fee for each motion was $60.00, for a total of $120.00.

          Kreiman expects to incur a $23.00 appearance fee to appear at the hearing. Because both motions will be heard at the same hearing, only one instance of the fee is necessary.

          Based on these calculations, the Court awards a total of $3,743.00.