Eugene Ellis v. Los Angeles County Probation Department, et al.

Case No. 19STLC11506

Motions to Compel and Motion to Deem Admitted

 

            The Court posts this tentative order on April 4, 2023, at approximately 11:00 a.m.  The Court provides notice that if Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear, either remotely or in-person, Plaintiff shall waive the right to be heard on the motions and shall submit to entry of this tentative order. 

 

Plaintiff Eugene Ellis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 18, 2019.  Plaintiff served the Los Angeles County Probation Department (which is located at 500 West Temple Street in downtown Los Angeles) on July 5, 2022.  Plaintiff served Defendant Rachel Lara on July 13, 2022, and no proof of service was filed for service upon Defendant Toyea Sims.  All defendants filed a demurrer on November 4, 2022, which the Court sustained with respect to the causes of action predicated upon harassment.  The trial shall proceed with respect to the first, third, fourth (as predicated upon discrimination/retaliation), fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. 

 

            Now, Defendants move to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one (“SROG”), form interrogatories—employment, set one (“FROG”), and requests for production of documents, set one (“RPD”).  Defendants also move to deem the matters specified in the requests for admission (“RFAs”) to have been admitted.  The discovery requests were served on October 31, 2022.  (Declaration of Oscar A. Bustos, ¶ 2.)  No responses were served before the deadline of December 2, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 3.)  Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on December 7, 2022, but she did not respond until December 29, 2022, at which point she promised to provide responses.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)  No responses were received, so on February 15, 2023, Defendants’ counsel again contacted Plaintiff’s counsel.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  No response was received, and Defendants’ counsel still has not received any responses.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff’s counsel did not oppose the motion, and the record reflects no good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this discovery responses.  Therefore, the motions are granted. 

 

Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $1,610 for each motion based upon a billing rate of $230 per hour.  The Court finds that Defendants’ counsel made reasonable efforts to facilitate a resolution without the necessity for motions.  The Court finds that these motions were necessary based upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to respond.  The Court finds that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct constitutes an abuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions.  Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay monetary sanction in the total amount of $3,450 based upon 15 hours of work at a billing rate of $230 per hour.

 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

 

            1.         Defendants’ motions to compel are granted.  Plaintiff shall provide verified responses, without objections, to the SROG, FROG, and RPD within thirty (30) days.

 

            2.         Defendants’ motion to deem admitted is granted.  Plaintiff shall be deemed to have admitted every matter specified in the RFAs.

 

            3.         The Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,450 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days.

 

            4.         If Defendants’ counsel wishes to file a motion for terminating sanctions based upon any non-compliance with this order, he may notice the motion for hearing on June 30, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

 

            5.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.