Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV16053, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16053    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 55

MARTIN v. LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY                          20STCV16053

Hearing Date: 1/31/23,  Dept. 55

#9:  

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OF ALL DEFENDANTS;  AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES/MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OF ALL DEFENDANTS; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendants

Summary

On 4/27/20, Plaintiff filed a Complaint.

On 11/24/20, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging:  Defendants unlawfully discriminated in employment, on account of religion, age and disability.  Plaintiff experienced an increasingly hostile and retaliatory work environment, which she believes was a result of  discriminatory acts, resulting in threats to change accommodation of her work hours that had been established since her employ, and inadequate updates in training and notice of changes in work procedures.  Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a deliberate course of harassment, demeaning remarks and belligerent behavior. These resulted in difficulty maintaining her work, and being unable to input information to meet case quotas, ultimately resulting in employment termination.  The Director and Dean supported and  facilitated superior Ms. Campos' personnel actions against plaintiff, over her protests.

The causes of action are:

1. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION [TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, ET.SEQ.]

2. AGE DISCRIMINATION [TIT.VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, ET.SEQ.]

3. DISABILITY [TIT.VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, ET.SEQ.]

4. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION [FEHA]

5. AGE [FEHA]

6. DISABILITY [FEHA]

7. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT  [FEHA]

8. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION [FEHA]

9. RETALIATION [CA LABOR CODE]

10. WRONGFUL TERMINATION [FEHA]

11. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL  DISTRESS.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling defendants’ further responses to special interrogatories and document requests, and imposing $7,280 and $9,912.50 in sanctions, on bases including the following:

·         April 5, 2022 Plaintiff properly served her special interrogatories and request for production of documents, set one on Defendants.

·         Objections were waived due to lateness.

·         The responses on July 1, 2022 were legally insubstantial, inadequate, and procedurally untimely, so as to be non-responsive.

·         Defendants failed to properly serve their initial responses, due to mailing them to Plaintiff’s counsel’s old address on Bolsa Avenue, instead of Beach Boulevard.

·         Plaintiff repeatedly attempted Meet-and-Confers with defense counsel.

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate denying, and imposing $1,710 and $1,800 in sanctions on Plaintiff, for reasons including the following:

·         If the motions are to compel initial responses, they are moot, because Plaintiff admits that she has already received the responses.

·         The responses were timely served by June 17, 2022—the discovery exchange date informally agreed upon by emails.  That extension was binding on the client, even if there was no client authority.  Blanton v. Womancare (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 403-404.

·         Service of the responses properly was on the last office address given by Plaintiff’s counsel.

·         The motions should be separated as to each of five defendants,

·         Separate statements are required to compel further responses.

Tentative Ruling

Both motions are denied.

The opposing requests for sanctions are granted, as prayed.

The motions actually should be just to compel further discovery responses after receipt of responses, but are brought as requests to compel initial responses, without the required separate statements for court evaluation.  When no separate statement is filed with a discovery motion, the matter may be ordered off calendar.  BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1270.  See also  CRC Rule 3.1345 (requirements of discovery separate statements).  Courts have discretion to deny discovery motions where a filed separate statement lacks the content and format required by the California Rules of Court.  Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.  Accord  St. Mary v. Sup. Ct.  (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 778.

The responses were timely filed within the informally extended date.  E.g., CCP § 2031.270;  . Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022)  § 8:1462.

The timely responses were properly served to the last address of record shown on court filings when served on 6/17/22.  See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-510 (if notice was not mailed to the “‘office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause,’” per CCP Section 1013(a), then notice would be ineffective).

Whether combined motions are allowed, is debatable, as expressed in this treatise excerpt:

[9:24.3] Separate vs. combined motions: Each motion or demurrer should normally be set forth in a separate document. (This includes any request for sanctions under CCP § 128.7; see ¶ 9:24.7.)

However, CRC 3.1112(c) states a motion, notice of hearing and points and authorities may be combined in a single document “if the party filing a combined pleading specifies these items separately in the caption of the combined pleading.” [CRC 3.1112(c)]

Comment: Although not entirely clear, CRC 3.1112(c) simply provides that all papers relating to the same motion or demurrer may be combined. It should not be read to authorize combining papers relating to separate motions.

¿ [9:24.4] PRACTICE POINTER: Even if no rule expressly prohibits combining several motions in a single document, it is not recommended. The judge may not be receptive to this practice or may overlook one of the combined motions. Investigate local practices.

Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022)  § 9:24.3.

Finally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.