Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV28278, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28278    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 55

GUEVARA v. MILESTONE TRUCKING, INC.,                        22STCV28278

Hearing Date:  5/9/23,  Dept. 55.

#7:   

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendant MILESTONE TRUCKING, INC.

Summary

On 8/30/22, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and committed wage statement violations.

The Causes of Action are:

1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES;

2. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES;

3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS;

4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS;

5. WAITING TIME PENALTIES;

6. WAGE STATEMENT VIOLATIONS;

7. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 2802;

8. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY WAGES;  and

9. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling Defendant to serve initial responses to special interrogatories and document requests, and imposing monetary sanctions, on grounds including the following:

·         Defendant has failed, without substantial justification, to serve any responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories and document requests, propounded on Defendant.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         The motions are moot, because discovery responses have been served.

·         No sanctions should be imposed, since late responses are justified due to the substitution into this case of current counsel.

Tentative Ruling

Both motions are ordered off calendar as moot, in light of the opposition showing that the discovery responses have been served.

 Where respondents served untimely discovery responses after parties have filed motions to compel initial responses, courts have broad discretion as to ruling, including: 1) denying the motion as moot, in whole or part, where valid responses without objections have resolved the motion;  2) awarding requested sanctions;  3) allowing moving party to take the motion off calendar;  4)  considering the motion as voluntarily narrowed in scope;  5)  compelling responses without objection, where no legally valid responses have been provided, as to some, or all, interrogatories; 6) treating the motion as one to compel further responses, and ruling accordingly, with, or without, a separate statement;  7) ordering the parties to meet and confer;  8)  ordering moving party to file a separate statement;  or, 9) ordering the motion off calendar while requiring the propounding party to file a motion to compel further responses.  Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.