Judge Mark C. Kim, Case 22LBCV00027 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00027, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00027 Hearing Date: February 21, 2023 Dept: S27

1. Background Facts

On January 19, 2022 Plaintiff Denise Ortega, who is now represented by and through her successor and interest Joh Ortega (“Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint against Defendant Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC (“Defendant”) for disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination, among several other causes of action.

On January 9 and 10, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories - General (Set One), Form Interrogatories -Employment (Set One) (collectively “FROGs”), Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFPs”). The motions are unopposed.

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses

a. Meet and Confer

The Court notes that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied. (See Rosilez Decls.)

b. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(a), and Section 2031.310, parties may move for a further response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general.

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(3)).

Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

c. Timeliness

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s motions are timely, as the parties had mutually agreed that the deadline to file any motions to compel further would be January 9, 2023. (See Rosilez Decls., ¶¶ 9, Exhs. H, J.)

/ / /

d. Form Interrogatories Requests for Production of Documents

The Court notes that these motions were improperly filed as motions to compel initial responses, and should have been filed as motions to compel further responses. In order to avoid wasting judicial resources, the Court will rule on the motions.

Defendant’s motions are based on similar grounds. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to the FROGs and RFPs contain boilerplate objections that are without merit. In addition, Defendant contends that the FROGs responses are incomplete.

A review of Plaintiff’s responses to the FROGs and RFPs at issue reveals that they all contain objections, and Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition and justify all of the objections in his responses. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [The burden to justify an objection to a discovery request is on the party asserting the objection.]) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to justify his objections, and orders Plaintiff to provide complete responses without objections.

Thus, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide further responses to FROG Nos. 12.1, 14.1, 200.3, 202.1, 204.1, 204.2, 204.6, 207.2, 210.4, and 212.4. In addition, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide further responses to RFP Nos. 1-4, 6-26, 28-56, 60, 61, 63, 69, 72, and 74-75.

e. Special Interrogatories

Based on the moving papers, Defendant’s motion to compel SROGs is a motion to compel initial responses; however, based on the declaration of Rosilez in support of the Motion and a separate statement also filed a support, it appears that the incorrect moving papers were filed (and/or were never prepared). (See Rosilez Decl.; Def. Separate Statement) Based on the separate statement and Rosilez’s declaration, it appears that Plaintiff provided responses to the SROGs. In light Defendant’s failure to serve the proper moving papers, provide notice under the correct statute, and the failure to correctly number the interrogatories at issue with corresponding response in the separate statement (which prevents the Court from determining which interrogatories are at issue), the Court denies Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses to SROGs.

f. Sanctions

Defendant generally seeks sanctions in the moving papers for the FROGs and RFPs, but failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 and identify the person against who the sanctions are being sought and state the type of sanction sought in the notices of the motions or in the memorandum of points and authorities. The Court notes that in Rosilez’s declaration he states that sanctions for all the motions were all added up, and being sought in Defendant’s motion to compel SROGs; however, Defendant’s practice is improper. Defendant should have provided notice that it was seeking sanctions in each motion, the type of sanctions sought, who the sanctions were being sought against, and the amount being sought for each motion.

In light of the Court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to compel responses to SROGs, the Court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions.

3. Conclusion

Defendant’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are GRANTED.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED. The Court also DENIES Defendant’s Request for Sanctions.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org 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 an email 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.