Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00037826-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  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  Wrongful Termination Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00037826-CU-WT-CTL SESMA CASILLAS VS JPI CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff David Casillas' motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories (set one) and requests for production (set one) are DENIED. Casillas' requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED as set forth below.

Plaintiff indicated in his reply that further responses have recently been served and documents have recently been produced. The motion to compel is therefore denied as unnecessary. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) Although Plaintiff contends that Defendant's responses to SROGs 25 and 26 remain deficient, there is no indication that the parties have met and conferred on that issue. If the parties are unable to informally resolve the dispute, then Plaintiff may bring a new motion to compel another further response to those interrogatories. (See Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.) However, the fact Defendant served further responses and produced documents after the motions were filed does not shield it from sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Defendant asserts in a late-filed opposition that its attorney was moving offices in January 2024 and overlooked Plaintiff's meet and confer letter. That is not substantial justification under the circumstances, nor does it render sanctions unjust. No notice of the move was provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also sent two follow-up emails, and there is no explanation for why those emails also went unanswered. Having received no response or extension, Plaintiff was forced to prepare the motions to preserve his right to compel.

Defendant then waited until the day its oppositions to the motions were due to provide the further responses and produce the documents.

Plaintiff is therefore awarded monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,520 (4 hours at $350/hr, plus two $60 filing fees). Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and Defendant's counsel (Daniel Goularte), jointly and severally, and shall be paid within 30 days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078746  45