Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV40490, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 21STCV40490    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:              August 29, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Ricky Baeza

Responding Party:      Defendant Scisorek & Son Flavors, Inc.

Motion:

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Plaintiff’s discovery motions are DENIED as moot. However, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,584.95. Monetary sanctions are due within 10 days of the date of the order of this Motion.

Background

            Ricky Baeza (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint containing eight causes of action against his former employers Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC and Scisorek & Son Flavors, Inc. (S&S). The Complaint, filed on November 3, 2021 alleges several violations of California Labor Codes and violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

            The motions now before the Court are the following:

1.      Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories – General

2.       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories – Employment

3.      Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (hereinafter the “Motions”)

All Motions are filed against S&S, and S&S opposes all three of the Motions with one filing, and Plaintiff files a reply.

Discussion

Legal Standard

The propounding party may bring motions to compel inspection or further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)  

The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d).)

            Timeline

            On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on S&S (Defendant). (Declaration of Luis Guardado, hereinafter “Guardado Decl.”, ¶3.) The initial responses were due on August 1, 2023. (Id.) After multiple extensions were provided, Defendant provided responses which were received on October 16, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter contending the initial responses were deficient and requesting responses by November 17, 2023. (Id. at ¶6.) On the same day, Defendant notified Plaintiff they would not be supplementing the responses by that date. Although Defendant granted an extension to file the instant Motions explaining he had not yet had time to review the initial meet and confer letter, Defendant failed to provide any supplemental responses at that time. (Id. at ¶¶8-9.) Supplemental responses finally came on August 12, 2024, seven months after the instant Motions were filed, and over a year since the initial discovery was requested.

            Analysis

            Upon opposition, Defendant contends there are no discovery requests at issue because Defendant provided code-compliant supplemental responses[1] on August 12, 2024 four days prior to the deadline for opposing the instant Motions. Defendant contends therefore the Motions are moot. Upon reply, Plaintiff does not contest whether the supplemental responses are sufficient, but rather argues because of the delay in providing them that sanctions are warranted. The Court agrees.

            In their opposition papers, Defendant provides no explanation for why, after receiving the initial meet and confer letter on November 9, 2023, responses were not provided until August of the next year. Defendant attempts to argue that Plaintiff is “extorting” sanctions from Defendant, however the Court is unpersuaded. Plaintiff is permitted to request, and the Court permitted to impose monetary sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d). Moreover, even if discovery responses have been served, the Court can still award sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Accordingly, although the issue regarding the deficiency of the responses appears to be resolved, sanctions are warranted.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations:

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $400.00

·         Counsel spent 3 hours preparing the Motions

·         Counsel anticipated 2 hours to review opposition papers and draft a reply

·         Counsel anticipates 1 hour to appear at the hearing

·         The filing fee for each Motion was $61.65

·         Counsel requests in total $2,584.95 in sanctions

Accordingly, the Court will impose sanctions against Defendant and grant them to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,584.95, inclusive and across all three Motions.

Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s discovery motions are DENIED as moot. However, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,584.95. Monetary sanctions are due within 10 days of the date of the order of this Motion.

It is so ordered.

Dated: August 29, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court