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

Case Number: 20STLC06910     Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE);

                                    REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 9, 2022 at 13:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein on the opposing party at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing and file it with the Court at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NOT OK[1]

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of October 4, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of October 4, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

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 Production of Documents, Set One, propounded upon Defendant Robert, 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 Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, 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.) 

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

A.    Request for Production of Documents

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).)  If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)  The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a), 2031.300.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

            The Court notes that the Motion and Declaration of Counsel Leonardo contain several inconsistencies regarding the relief sought.  While the Motion is intended to address the Request for Production of Documents, throughout the declaration and Motion, there are references to the Form Interrogatories propounded on Defendants.  Counsel states that his declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories propounded on Defendants Robert and Erin, and requests monetary sanctions for attorney’s fees and costs incurred “in obtaining responses to the FROGs.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 1, 11.)  In the Motion, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(b), which applies to motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, and later, states that “Defendants have misused the discovery process by failing to respond to the FROGS.”  (Mot. pp. 5-6.)

Due to the inconsistencies discussed above, the Court cannot rule on the instant Motion.  Thus, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion and orders Plaintiff to file an amended Motion and Declaration of Counsel, addressing the reasons that the Court should compel Defendant Robert Hughes’s responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

B.    Sanctions

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 continued, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also CONTINUED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 9, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein on the opposing party at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing and file it with the Court at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.