Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00029476-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00029476-CU-OE-CTL CORDERO-RABE VS FHR GDM HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Michael Cordero-Rabe's motions to compel initial responses to (1) Special Interrogatories (Set One), (2) Requests for Production (Set One), (3) Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), and (4) Form Interrogatories-Employment (Set One), are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

FHR GDM Hotel Management Company, LLC On March 26, 2024, after Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel, Defendant FHR GDM Hotel Management Company, LLC ('FHR') served responses to the discovery at issue.

When a party moves to compel initial responses, and those initial responses are served in advance of the hearing, courts have several options: 'The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories [or requests]; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 [or 2031.310–2031.320] and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to 'meet and confer' and file a separate statement; or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300 [or 2031.310–2031.320].' (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) Plaintiff argues that FHR's responses improperly include objections, and Plaintiff did not receive verifications to the responses until May 6, 2024, the same date that Defendants FHR and Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland), LLC ('Accor') filed their opposition. Plaintiff thus argues the responses are deficient. However, there is evidence that Defendants did not learn about the discovery requests until Plaintiff's counsel provided the requests after the deadline to respond had already lapsed. Additionally, the sufficiency of FHR's responses is more appropriately addressed in a motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff's motion to compel FHR's initial responses is therefore denied as moot, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing motions to compel further responses.

Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland), LLC Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082776  40 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CORDERO-RABE VS FHR GDM HOTEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY  37-2023-00029476-CU-OE-CTL On March 26, 2024, after Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel, Accor served responses to the discovery at issue.

For the reasons set forth regarding the motion to compel FHR's initial responses, Plaintiff's motion to compel Accor's initial responses is denied as moot, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing motions to compel further responses.

Fairmont Grand Del Mar Defendant Fairmont Grand Del Mar has wholly failed to respond to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories-Employment (Set One).

Defendant Fairmont Grand Del Mar is therefore ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories-Employment (Set One). The responses shall be served within 10 days.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Defendant Fairmont Hotels & Resorts has wholly failed to respond to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories-Employment (Set One).

Defendant Fairmont Hotels & Resorts is therefore ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), and Form Interrogatories-Employment (Set One). The responses shall be served within 10 days.

Sanctions Service of initial responses in advance of a hearing does not moot a request for sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) However, sanctions shall not be imposed if the opposing party acted with substantial justification or if sanctions would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd.

(c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, there is evidence that Defendants did not learn about the discovery requests until Plaintiff's counsel provided the requests after the deadline to respond had already lapsed. Specifically, defense counsel (Daniel Handman) states that his office never saw digital or physical copies of the discovery requests at issue prior to December 13, 2023 despite searching through his emails and investigating the situation. Although the parties engaged in meet and confer efforts, the parties could not agree on a service date, a deadline to serve initial responses after December 13, 2023, and whether objections had been waived. Under the circumstances, the Court finds substantial justification and declines to award sanctions this time.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082776  40