Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00011, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22LBCV00011    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: S27

 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH DISTRICT

 

VICTORIA ROSALES,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

SOLOMON LAKTINEH, M.D., ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 22LBCV00011

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

 

Dept. S27

8:30 a.m.

October 13, 2022

 

Moving Party:               Plaintiff, Victoria Rosales

Opposing Party:           Defendants, Solomon Laktineh, M.D. and Solomon Laktineh, M.D.

Notice:                         OK

 

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Victoria Rosales filed this action against Defendants, Solomon Laktineh, M.D. and Solomon Laktineh, M.D., a medical corporation for sexual harassment and related claims on 1/13/22.  Defendants answered the complaint on 2/22/22. 

 

2.     Motion to Compel Further Responses

a.     Procedural History

On 7/21/22, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses.  Plaintiff provided a separate statement showing that she propounded interrogatories on the individual defendant, and he responded only with objections.  The hearing was originally scheduled for 8/23/22.  The Court continued the hearing because Plaintiff failed to provide copies of the actual discovery propounded on Defendant. 

The day before the hearing, having received the tentative ruling, Plaintiff provided a copy of the actual interrogatories propounded.  Plaintiff also served a notice of continuance of the hearing, with a new date of 10/13/22. 

 

b.     Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion is granted for two reasons.  First, opposition to the original motion was due on or before 8/10/22.  Opposition to the continued motion was due on or before 9/30/22.  Defendants filed untimely opposition on 10/03/22.  Defendants’ attorney’s legal assistant declares she was very sick and the opposition was filed one day late as a result.  There is, however, no explanation of why Defendants did not file opposition to the original motion; notably, Defendants were clearly in possession of the subject interrogatories, and therefore the Court’s stated reason for continuing the hearing did not apply to Defendants. 

 

Second, and more importantly, Plaintiff showed that the responses to interrogatories consist entirely of boilerplate objections.  The burden to justify objections is on the party asserting the objections.  See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.  Defendants fail to meaningfully do so in their opposition to the motion. 

 

There are only two interrogatories at issue on the motion.  The first one seeks identification of employees to whom Defendants made Zelle payments during the five years that preceded litigation.  The second one seeks the reason for those payments.  Defendants argue the special interrogatories at issue invade the right to privacy of themselves and third parties and are irrelevant.  However, the crux of Plaintiff’s action is her allegation that Defendants violated wage and hour law, in part by making improper payments “off the books.”  Notably, Plaintiff is not seeking financial information from Defendants or third parties; she is seeking only identification of potential witnesses to the action.  Defendants’ response will not call for banking information, amounts of payments made, or anything else that is private. 

 

The motion to compel further responses is granted.  Defendant is ordered to serve further responses, without objections, within twenty days. 

 

c.     Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motion.  Sanctions are mandatory per CCP §2030.300(d) (mis-cited as §2031.300 in the moving papers).  Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $4861.65.  Plaintiff’s attorney declares he spent 7.4 hours drafting the motion, 1.2 hours drafting the declaration and separate statement, and one hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, all at $500/hour, and also incurred a filing fee.  Plaintiff’s notice of motion, however, fails to comply with CCP §2023.040, which requires the notice of motion to identify “every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought.”  Because Plaintiff did not do so, the request for sanctions is denied. 

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must call the court at 562-256-2227 indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive a phone call indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

DATED:  October 13, 2022                     _____________________________________

                                                            MARK C. KIM                                                                                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court