Judge Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case Number: 23AHCV01676, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV01676, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

This is an employment dispute. Plaintiff Irwin Munoz (Munoz) was fired by his employer, TCK Alhambra LLC (TCK), for allegedly violating company policy and drinking on the job. The complaint contains ten causes of action: (1) wrongful termination, (2) California Family Rights Act, (3) Interference with California Family Rights Act, (4) Retaliation based on California Family Rights Act, (5) New Parent Leave Act Violation, (6) Discrimination based on marital status, (7) Misclassification in violation of Labor Code, (8) Wage Statement Violation, (9) Failure to Reimburse Expenses, and (10) Minimum Wage Violation.

Before the Court is Defendant’s unopposed motion for an order compelling response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Because the evidence shows Plaintiff failed to respond, the motion is granted. Sanctions (in a reduced amount) are also awarded.

“Any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (CCP § 2031.010.) “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480(a).)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes: “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Reasonable expenses under CCP section 2023.030(a) include the time spent in researching and preparing the motion, as well as court time and travel time spent in connection with the motion. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2025.480(j).)

TCK served Munoz with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on September 26, 2023, via mail and email. Responses were due October 26, 2023. On November 1, 2023, Munoz served objection-only responses to Requests for Production, Set One but did not provide any responsive documents. (Deam Decl., Exh. B.) On November 2, 2023, Counsel for TCK, Ryan M. Deam, reached out via email to Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the responses. (Deam Decl., Exh. C p. 55.) Deam sent follow-up emails November 8, November 15, and November 28. (Id. at p. 54-55.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded November 15 that “I am working on the responses.” (Id. at p. 54.) On December 1, 2023, Munoz served supplemental responses. Deam then corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel on December 13, December 29, and January 4, 2024. (Deam Decl. ¶ 3.) On December 15, Plaintiff’s counsel responded “The RPD response is ready, however, we are still gathering documents.” (Deam Decl., Exh. C p. 49.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, no responsive documents have been received. (Deam Decl. ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, the motion to compel the production of documents in response to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One is granted.

TCK requests $5,700.00 in monetary sanctions. TCK’s request is accompanied by the declaration of its Counsel, Ryan M. Deam. (Deam Decl.) Deam declares that he spent 15 hours preparing the motion to compel responses and expects to spend 3 additional hours responding to Defendant’s opposition and preparing for the hearing, 1 hour traveling to the court, and 1 hour attending the hearing. (Deam Decl. ¶ 7.) His hourly rate is $285. (Id.)

The Court finds that the hourly rate of $285 is reasonable. The Court declines to find 15 hours preparing the motion reasonable, however. This amount is excessive. Instead, the Court awards 3 hours for preparing the motion. The Court also declines to award time responding to an opposition, as none was filed. The Court finds that 1 hour traveling and 1 hour attending the hearing reasonable.

Defendant’s motion for an order compelling the production of documents in response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive documents within fifteen days.[1]

Plaintiff Munoz and his counsel Gene M. Ramos are further ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $1,425.00 to Defendant TCK within 30 days.

[1] The Court declines to order Plaintiff to serve further written responses, as Defendant’s motion is not properly styled as a motion to compel further responses, and it is not accompanied by a Separate Statement.