Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC06910 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Robert Hughes (“Robert”) and Erin Hughes (“Erin”), (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) violations of Labor Code §204 for failure to pay wages, (2) violations of Labor Code for failure to pay overtime compensation, (3) violations of Labor Code § 226.7 (meal periods), (4) violations of Labor Code § 226.7 (rest periods), and (5) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code §17200.

On March 1 and 3, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s Request for Default, default was entered as to Defendant Erin and Defendant Robert, respectively. (3-1-22 Request; 3-3-22 Request.)

On May 24, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default. On June 22, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion and ordered them to file responsive pleadings within ten (10) days of notice of the Court order. (6-22-22 Minute Order.) On June 29, 2022, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) against defense counsel for $6,794.98 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion on September 20, 2022, for attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,577.00 and costs in the amount of $112.48. (9-20-22 Minute Order.)

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded upon Defendants Robert and Erin, and for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $974.77 (“Motion”). On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted. No opposition has been filed to the instant Motion.

On September 21, 2022, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to shorten time for hearing on the discovery motions and advanced trial to January 24, 2023. (9-21-22 Minute Order.) The Court noted that two of Plaintiff’s discovery motions impermissibly contained requests for relief against two separate defendants. (Ibid. at p. 2.)

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff impermissibly filed requests for relief as to two separate Defendants as a single motion. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 457,460; Govt. Code § 70617(a).) Here, Plaintiff paid a single filing fee for what should have been two separate motions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Furthermore, the Court notes that the instant Motion was not served on Defendants in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b). Section 1005(b) requires moving papers to be served 16 court days prior to the hearing on the Motion, with an additional 5 calendar days in case of service by mail. Here, Plaintiff served the moving papers 16 court days and 2 calendar days prior to the hearing.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Given that the instant Motion is denied, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also DENIED.

Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

[1] Documents were served by mail 16 court days and 2 calendar days prior to the hearing, instead of 16 courts days and 5 additional calendar days, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) in case moving papers are served by mail in California.

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded upon Defendants Robert and Erin, Admitted, and for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $749.77 (“Motion”). On the same day, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. No opposition has been filed to the instant Motion.

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond. The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

The Court notes that Plaintiff impermissibly filed requests for relief as to two separate Defendants as a single motion. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 457,460; Govt. Code § 70617(a).) Here, Plaintiff paid a single filing fee for what should have been two separate motions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court also notes that the Motion and Declaration of Counsel Leonardo contain several inconsistencies regarding the relief sought. While the Motion is intended to address the Requests for Admission, throughout the declaration and Motion, there are references to the Form Interrogatories propounded on Defendants. Counsel states that “responses to the FROGs were due on August 1, 2022” and defense counsel “never provided responses to the FROGs.” (Leonardo Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8.) Counsel also requests monetary sanctions for attorney’s fees and costs incurred “in obtaining responses to the FROGs.” (Ibid. at ¶ 11.)

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Ibid.) Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).