Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 21STCV17546, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling



DEPARTMENT 24 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
Submission Instructions.


1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SMCDEPT24@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address.  You must cc all other parties on the email.

2.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, case name and number, date of hearing and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions

3. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a motion placed off-calendar and parties are ordered to cancel the reservation on CRS. 

4. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

5.Tentative rulings are not invitations or opportunities to file further documents relative to the hearing before the Court.  Said document(s) will not be considered by the Court.

                          




Case Number: 21STCV17546    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 24

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Self Love, LLC to Employment - Form Interrogatories (set one) 211.1 and 216.1 and Request for Monetary Sanctions reservation no.: 900709780865 filed by Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri on 3/03/2023; the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Kreation Juicery, Inc. to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (set one) and Request for Monetary Sanctions reservation no.: 160088416811 filed by Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri on 3/03/2023; and the Motion to Compel

 Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Self Love, LLC to Employment Form Interrogatory (set one) 21,24,30,31,33, and 35 through 168 and Request for Monetary Sanctions reservation no.: 868772852761 filed by Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri on 3/06/2023 are DENIED without prejudice.

By way of background, on May 10, 2021, Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants Self Love, LLC (“Self Love”), Kreation Juicery, Inc (“Kreation”), and Marjan Sarshar (“Sarshar”) (collectively “Defendants”) for labor and employment violations. Now Plaintiff brings three separate motions to compel further discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff moves for an order compelling (i) Self Love to provide further responses to special interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, and 35 through 168, (ii) Self Love to provide further response to employment form interrogatories set one (“EROG”) Nos. 211.1 and 216.1, and (iii) Kreation to provide further response and produce all documents responsive to requests for production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-12, 15-30, 33-34, 39-48, 51, 54, 58-60, 66-67.

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. Plaintiff names Defendants in the motions but does not identify counsel by name or firm in the notice of motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Plaintiff does not specify amount sought in the notice of the motions for SROG or RFP; the motions each state “XXXX” amount. Plaintiff seeks $20,625 in sanctions in EROG motion against Defendants.

This motion was original set for March 30, 2023, but Plaintiff rescheduled the hearing. In the interim, Defendants filed amended papers stating that they have substantially complied with Plaintiffs’ requests. Plaintiff did not reply to the original or to the amended opposition.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motions suffer from many procedural issues which make it difficult for the court to assess Plaintiff’s arguments.

First, in each motion, Plaintiff did not attach any supporting evidence to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Armand Jaafari (“Jaafari”). Second, the separate statements are not code compliant. (See Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (c).) They do not include Defendants’ responses for each request. It is unclear if Defendants did not respond, Defendants provided the same response to certain numbers, or Plaintiff in advertently failed to include the responses. The requests also do not always include the statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further response as to each matter in dispute. Finally, third, many of the documents are mislabeled or refer to different discovery requests within the same document. For example. Plaintiff’s separate statement captioned as “Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri Separate Statement Of Discovery And Responses In Dispute In Support Of Plaintiff Shahrooz Taheri’s Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Production Set, One And Employee Form Intterogatory[sic]” includes language for Form Interrogatories General. Contrary to the caption, it does not include requests or responses to Form Interrogatories Employment or Requests for Production.

The court discusses each motion specifically below.

1. Self Love – Responses to SROGs, Set One

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Self Love to provide further responses to SROG Nos. 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, and 35 through 168. Plaintiff states in the moving papers that on June 2, 2021,

he served Self Love with SROGs set one. After extensive meet and confer between the parties Self Love supplied Plaintiff with largely objection only responses. Plaintiff seeks further responses.

A party may move for an order compelling further response if “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[, or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300.) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The court strictly enforces this time requirement. (See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 683 [the time limitation “is mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel”].)

As a preliminary matter, the court cannot ascertain if the motion is timely under the code section. Plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting when Self Love provided responses or confirming the motion to compel deadline was extended by agreement of the parties until the present. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Jaafari submits his declaration in support of the motion, but does not state when the SROGs were served. Through some inadvertence, Jaafari refers to numerous attached exhibits, but he attaches no exhibits to his declaration, the motion, or the separate statement. Due to the lack of attached exhibits, the court cannot review the actual requests or responses beyond what is within Plaintiff’s separate statement. The court also cannot review the scope of the parties’ meet and confer efforts regarding the disputed discovery.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion with attached exhibits in support.

2. Self Love – Responses to EROGs Set One

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Self Love to provide further response to employment form interrogatories set one (“EROG”) Nos. 211.1 and 216. The motion fails for the same reasons discussed above—there are no exhibits in support of the motion. Additionally, Plaintiff does not attach a separate statement regarding EROGs Nos. 211.1 and 216 as required. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.) Instead, Plaintiff incorrectly attaches a separate statement regarding Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) Nos. 12.1-12.3.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

3. Kreatine – Responses to RFPs Set One

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Kreation to provide further response and produce all documents responsive RFP Nos. 1-12, 15-30, 33-34, 39-48, 51, 54, 58-60, 66-67. The motion fails for the same reasons discussed above—there are no exhibits in support of the motion.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. 

If Plaintiff decides to refile the motions to compel further discovery, Plaintiff should closely review the requirements for filling a code compliant motion to compel further discovery. 

Additionally, it is helpful to the court when Plaintiff identifies the Defendant by name in the motion, caption, or notice. 

Moving party is directed to give notice.