Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV20796, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20796    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Case Name:                            Webb v. Allied Universal Security, et al.

Case No.:                                22STCV20796

Motion:                                  Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Moving Party:                         Defendant Allied Universal Security Services

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Charles Webb (untimely)

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    The Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is MOOT. Sanctions are denied.

Moving Party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Charles Webb (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Allied Universal Security Services (“Defendant”), asserting seven wage and hour causes of action for failure to pay earned wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to furnish complete and accurate wage statements, nonpayment of wages when due, waiting time penalties, and violation of California Unfair Competition Law.

            On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel responses to request for production of documents, set one.

            On March 6, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion and a supplemental declaration.

            On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. The opposition is untimely. However, the Court in its discretion considers it as the opposition states that Plaintiff served responses after the motion was filed, and Defendant’s supplemental declaration filed on March 6 acknowledges this. The Court may hear from Defendant at the hearing regarding any arguments in response.

DISCUSSION

            CCP §2031.300(b) states that “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it,” “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” 

Failure to respond “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

The court “shall” impose monetary sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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., § 2031.300(c).

            Here, as acknowledged by both parties, Plaintiff has served responses to the requests. Thus, the motion is MOOT. Any concerns regarding the responses may be raised in a noticed motion to compel further responses by Defendant.

            As to sanctions, the Court finds that they are unwarranted and imposition would be unjust based on Plaintiff’s opposition and Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel represent that there was an initial miscommunication regarding the responses. Upon receipt of the responses to form interrogatories and request for admission, sets one, Defendant made Plaintiff aware that there were still outstanding responses to the request for production of documents, set one, including document production. Plaintiff informed Defendant that this was not known, documented, or calendared properly by counsel and would be worked on immediately. Defendant and Plaintiff had an open line of communication regarding the responses and document production as well as an extension via email and phone. Further, Plaintiff represents that he was under the impression that there was a stay on the ongoing discovery process while engaging in settlement negotiations based on telephone conversations with Defense counsel. When Defendant filed this motion, and Plaintiff was made aware that the discovery process was not on hold, he showed good faith and immediately served responses on the same date as well as reached out to Defense Counsel to clarify. Plaintiff served a verification to the responses three days later. Plaintiff represents that he was confused as to why Defendant would not inform him that discovery was still expected and outstanding at this time via email or telephone as they were actively in communication that way regarding potential resolution. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that this was not a misuse of the discovery process, and the failure to timely serve responses was based upon a misunderstanding. Further, responses were served immediately after notice of the motion. Accordingly, sanction would be unjust under the circumstances.

CONCLUSION

            The Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is MOOT. Sanctions are denied.

Moving Party to give notice.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.