Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV22333, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Daniel Metcalf pka Hermexial Drexilus, JD Howell, Adam Shambour, Robert Alvarez, Adeshola Adigun (“Adigun”), and Robert Litvinchuk bring this wage and hour action against defendants O’Shea Jackson, Jr. pka Ice Cube (“Jackson”), Gabriel Hart, and Video God, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants employed Plaintiffs as crewmembers for the production of a video. Defendants discharged Plaintiffs from the production but failed to compensate them.

On March 7 and March 10, 2025, Plaintiff Adigun filed these motions to compel Defendant Jackson to provide further responses to Adigun’s First Set of Form Interrogatories—General, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Jackson and his counsel of record.

On May 20, 2025, Jackson filed oppositions. Jackson requests sanctions against Adigun and his counsel of record.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories, inspection demands, and admissions requests where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(c); 2031.310(c); 2033.290(c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1); 2031.310(b)(2); 2033.290, (b)(1).)

Finally, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. R. of Ct., rule 3.1345(a)(3).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

Sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d); 2031.310(h); 2033.290(d).)

Sanctions against counsel:¿ The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 (Hennings) noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party:¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

By the terms of the statute, a trial court under section 2023.030(a) may not impose monetary sanctions against a party’s attorney unless the court finds that the attorney “advised” the party to engage in the conduct resulting in sanctions. (§ 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)¿ “Unlike monetary sanctions against a party, which are based on the party's misuse of the discovery process, monetary sanctions against the party's attorney require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’ ” (Ibid.) “It is not enough that the attorney's actions were in some way improper.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247 (Corns).) Because an attorney's advice to a client is “peculiarly within [his or her] knowledge,” the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct. (Id. at pp. 200–201, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247; Ghanooni, at p. 262, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)¿¿

Plaintiff Adigun seeks Jackson’s further responses to FROG Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 15.1, and 17.1. On May 16, 2025, Jackson supplemented his responses to FROG Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.11, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1. In his reply, Plaintiff Adigun narrows the at-issue requests to FROG Nos. 15.1 and 17.1.

FROG No. 15.1: GRANTED. Jackson supplemented this response. However, the supplemental response is still not code compliant. Despite separately identifying each affirmative defense, Jackson restates the same boilerplate response for each affirmative defense. The boilerplate response does not include facts tailored to the elements of each affirmative defense. Further, Jackson must indicate whether the witnesses identified in his 15.1(b) are witnesses for each affirmative defense, or for specific defenses only. The same logic applies to 15.1(c). If Jackson has not found responsive documents, Jackson must indicate whether this response applies to all defenses or to specific defenses only. A further response is warranted.

FROG 17.1: DENIED. Jackson supplemented this response. The supplemental response is code compliant.

Plaintiff Adigun seeks Jackson’s further responses to SROG Nos. 13, 14, 24, 25, and 26. On May 16, 2025, Jackson supplemented his responses to these discovery requests. Adigun maintains the supplemental responses are defective. The court has reviewed the supplemental responses and finds they are code compliant. The motion to compel further responses to SROG Nos. 13, 14, 24, 25, and 26 is DENIED.

Plaintiff Adigun seeks Jackson’s further responses to RPD Nos. 5-14, 22, 23, 30, 31, 33, 35-39, and 42. On May 16, 2025, Jackson supplemented his responses to RPD Nos. 5-11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 31, and 33. Adigun maintains Jackson’s supplemental responses are not code compliant.

RPD Nos. 5-11: DENIED. Jackson’s supplemental responses to these requests are code compliant.

RPD Nos. 13, 14: DENIED. Jackson’s supplemental responses to these requests are code compliant.

RPD Nos. 22, 23: GRANTED. Jackson’s supplemental response is evasive. These requests seek documents relating to any meeting held by Jackson related to Plaintiff’s employment and the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint. Responding to these requests do not depend on whether Jackson is or is not Adigun’s employer. A further response is warranted. To the extent there are responsive documents which Jackson contends are protected by a privilege, Jackson must also provide a privilege log.

RPD Nos. 31, 33: DENIED. Jackson’s supplemental responses to these requests are code compliant.

Plaintiff Adigun seeks Jackson’s further responses to RFA Nos. 1-8, 11-25. On May 16, 2025, Jackson supplemented his responses to RFA Nos. 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20. Adigun maintains the supplemental responses are still defective.

RFA No. 2: GRANTED. Jackson’s supplemental response is not code compliant. Jackson asserts denials and an inability to comply. Such a response is evasive. A further response is warranted.

RFA No. 6: GRANTED. Jackson’s supplemental responses are not code compliant. Jackson asserts denials and an inability to comply. Such a response is evasive. A further response is warranted.

RFA No. 8: GRANTED. Jackson’s supplemental responses are not code compliant. Jackson asserts denials and an inability to comply. Such a response is evasive. A further response is warranted.

RFA Nos. 11: DENIED. The request presumes Jackson was Adigun’s employer. Jackson objects to and unequivocally denies that premise. A further response is not warranted.

RFA No. 13: DENIED. The request presumes Jackson was Adigun’s employer. Jackson objects to and unequivocally denies that premise. A further response is not warranted.

RFA No. 16: DENIED. The request presumes Jackson was Adigun’s employer. Jackson objects to and unequivocally denies that premise. A further response is not warranted.

RFA No. 18: DENIED. The request presumes Jackson was Adigun’s employer. Jackson objects to and unequivocally denies that premise. A further response is not warranted.

RFA No. 20: DENIED. The request presumes Jackson was Adigun’s employer. Jackson objects to and unequivocally denies that premise. A further response is not warranted.

RFA No. 23: GRANTED. Jackson’s objections lack merit. A further response is warranted.

The parties each request sanctions. Given that the court has granted in part, and denied in part most of Adigun’s motions, the court declines to impose sanctions against any party or their counsel of record

The motions to compel further responses to the Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission are GRANTED IN PART. Defendant O’Shea Jackson, Sr. is ordered to provide further responses to those discovery requests as indicated herein.

The motion to compel further responses to the Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

Further discovery responses are to be provided within 30 days of the date of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court