Judge Linda S. Marks, Case 2022-01252612 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2022-01252612, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Production

3. Motion to Deem Facts Admitted filed by Christopher Mullane on 8/3/22 and 8/4/22
4.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories filed by Converze Media Group, LLC on 9/28/22

Plaintiff’s Motions #1, 2 and 3:

Responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission must be signed by the party to whom the discovery was directed unless the responses contain only objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a), 2031.250, subd. (a), and 2033.240, subd. (a).) Importantly, if the responses contain only objections, the attorney for the responding party shall sign any response that contains an objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (c), 2031.250, subd. (c), and 2033.240, subd. (c).)

Here, the responses provided on July 20, 2022 for all three sets of discovery at issue contain only objections. However, the responses were not signed by the attorney for the responding party. As such, it appears that the responses provided were tantamount to no response. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632; Melendrez v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1348.)

Accordingly, Defendant incorrectly argues that Plaintiff’s motions should be accompanied by separate statements pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 only requires a separate statement for motion to compel further responses to discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subds. (a)(1)-(a)(3).)

Moreover, a party is not required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel. A meet and confer is only required prior to bringing a motion to compel further responses.

In his opposition Defendant establishes that supplemental responses were provided, making the motions moot.

Tentative Ruling: The motions are deemed MOOT because Defendant Tedd Barr provided supplemental responses to the discovery at issue.

B. Sanctions

It is mandatory for the court to impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, who failed to serve timely responses to the interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission, and thus necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), and 2033.280(c).)

In the caption, notice of motion, and supporting declaration, it appears that Plaintiff requests $2,167 in sanctions for each of the motions. However, in the supporting declarations, Plaintiff states that each motion took three hours and Plaintiff’s counsel charges $350/hour. This amounts to $1,050. Plaintiff also requests $60 for the filing fee for each motion.

It is unclear where the $2,167 total comes from. Oddly, in the notices of motion regarding requests for production and interrogatories, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,770 after first requesting $2,167 in monetary sanctions.

Because Defendant failed to provide code compliant discovery, the court has authority to grant Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. It appears that supplemental responses were not provided until October 2022 after the discovery was propounded in April of 2022. However, defense counsel points out in his declaration that Defendant was in the process of obtaining new counsel at the time his old counsel served the discovery responses. Defendant’s new counsel was diligent in working to cure the defects in the discovery responses provided by the previous counsel. For this reason, the court deems there are circumstances that make the granting of sanctions unjust and therefore not appropriate.

Tentative Ruling: Sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel further responses to Special Interrogatories:

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The Special Interrogatories are straightforward and relevant. Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks Plaintiff to identify his cell phone provider(s) and No. 2 asks Plaintiff to identify his cell phone number(s) that he used during his employment. Plaintiff’s cell phone records are relevant because Defendant contends that Plaintiff was terminated for recording a telephone call in violation of company policy and the law. Plaintiff’s cell phone records will provide evidence of phone calls that were made, which are relevant to the phone call at issue that was recorded.

In addition to Defendant’s meritorious arguments, Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion and therefore any objections to the issues raised by Defendant are considered abandoned. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)

Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide verified written responses without objections within 15 days of the notice of ruling. There was no request for sanctions, therefore, no sanctions are awarded.

Moving party to give notice.