Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV03071, Date: 2024-10-08 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: 23STCV03071    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date: October 8, 2024

Moving Party: Plaintiff James Giovanni

Responding Party: Defendant Red Oak Capital Holdings, LLC

Motion to Compel Compliance with Defendant Red Oak Capital Holdings, LLC’s Agreement to Provide Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and Its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally in the Amount of $7,545

The Court considered the moving papers and opposition.

            The motion is DENIED.

Background

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff James Giovanni (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Red Oak Capital Holdings, LLC, Red Oak Capital Financial, LLC, and Red Oak Capital GP, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) whistleblower retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5), and (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

            On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff served its discovery requests (set one) on Defendants, including Requests for Production, Form Interrogatories-General, Form Interrogatories-Employment, and Special Interrogatories. (Crawford Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A; Wheeler Decl. ¶ 2.)

            On June 9, 2023, Defendants provided responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Crawford Decl. ¶ 4; Wheeler Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff alleged that the responses were deficient and, on July 6, 2023, sent a meet and confer request to Defendants’ counsel. (Crawford Decl. ¶ 5.)

            On August 3, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding some of Defendants’ responses. (Wheeler Decl. ¶ 4.)

            On September 19, 2023, Defendants, through counsel, sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel in response to the pending meet and confer issues, which agreed to provide supplemental responses to certain of Defendants’ previous responses. (Crawford Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. D; Wheeler Decl. ¶ 5.)

            On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendants’ counsel following up on the previously addressed meet and confer issues. (Crawford Decl. ¶ 7; Wheeler Decl. ¶ 7.)

            On May 17, 2024, Defendants’ counsel asked for an extension for the supplemental responses. After an exchange, on May 22, 2024, Defendants’ counsel stated that they would supply supplemental responses on June 7, 2024. (Crawford Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. F.)

            On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel.

            On August 1, 2024, pursuant to the Court’s order and the parties’ joint stipulation, Defendants and Plaintiff agreed to submit all discovery disputes to Hon. Cecily Bond (Ret.) as a Discovery Referee, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 638.

            On September 13, 2024, Defendants served on Plaintiff their supplemental further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, in accordance with Defendants’ prior agreement, including requests for production (set one), Form Interrogatories-Employment (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), and requests for production (set two). (Wheeler Decl. ¶ 8.)

Legal Standard

A motion to compel compliance may be brought where a responding party fails to timely produce responsive documents in accordance with the date agreed to by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.280, 2031.320(a).) Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(b).) Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).)

Motion to Compel

Here, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance is moot based on Defendants’ supplemental further responses, served on September 13, 2024, and the Court’s Order and joint stipulation of the parties to submit all pending and future discovery disputes to the Court-appointed Discovery Referee. (See Wheeler Decl. ¶ 8; see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390; Villa v. Cole (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1333 (a party’s “motion to compel responses to interrogatories was denied as moot on the grounds that answers had been submitted with [the] opposition”; Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 754 (after defendant “agreed to produce a privilege log[,]” the “motion to compel a privilege log was … [deemed] moot[.]”)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with Defendants’ agreement to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery is DENIED as moot.

Request for Sanctions

Further, the imposition of sanctions is not warranted in this case. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.320(b), the Court may not impose sanctions when it finds that the party “subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Courts have interpreted “substantial justification” to include objections to discovery requests that are “clearly reasonable because [they are] well grounded in both law and fact.” (Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.)

            Here, based upon a review of the declarations and evidence submitted in support of this motion and opposition, the Court is satisfied that Defendants had substantial justification to believe their objections to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests were valid.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            It is so ordered.

Dated:

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court