Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: BC695225, Date: 2024-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC695225 Hearing Date: May 20, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: May
20, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiff
John Robert Kochakji
Responding Party: None
(1) Motion to Compel Responses to
Requests for Production (Set Two)
(2) Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
The court
considered the moving papers. No opposition was received.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set Two).
The court orders defendant Mary Guidry to serve verified responses, without
objections, to Requests for Production (Set Two), within 30 days of the
date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against defendant Mary Guidry and her
counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,560 in attorney’s fees and costs
for the motion to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set Two). The
court orders defendant Mary Guidry and her counsel of record, jointly and
severally, to pay $1,560 to plaintiff John Robert
Kochakji, through her counsel of record, within 20
days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two).
The court orders defendant Mary Guidry to serve verified responses, without
objections, to Special Interrogatories (Set Two), within 30 days of the
date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against defendant Mary Guidry and
her counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,560 in attorney’s fees and
costs for the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two). The
court orders defendant Mary Guidry and her counsel of record, jointly and
severally, to pay $1,560 to plaintiff John Robert
Kochakji, through her counsel of record, within 20
days of the date of this ruling.
///
///
Background
This is an
employment dispute involving wage-and-hour, breach of contract, PAGA, and other
tort claims. Plaintiff John Robert Kochakji filed this action against
defendants Capri Coast Capital, Inc. dba Massage Envy, Optimum Employer
Solutions, LLC dba Massage Envy, and Erika Rice, alleging 12 causes of action.
Plaintiff filed Amendments to Complaint on October 5,
2018 that substituted defendants Mary
Guidry and Deon Rice for Does 1 and 2, respectively, wherever they appear in
the complaint.
On
November 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel responses to Form
Interrogatories (Set Two) and (2) a motion to compel responses to Requests for
Production (Set Two). No opposition was received.
Legal Standard
If a party to whom interrogatories were
directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for
an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP §
2030.290(b)-(c); see Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
390, 404.) CCP § 2030.290 contains no time limit for a motion to compel where
no responses have been served. All that needs to be shown in the moving papers
is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party,
that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been
served. (Leach v. Superior Court
(1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
If a party to whom requests for production
of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding
party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.
(CCP § 2031.300(b)-(c).) CCP § 2031.300 contains no time limit for a motion to
compel where no responses have been served. The propounding party need not
demonstrate good cause or satisfy a meet-and-confer requirement – all that
needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of requests for production
of documents was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to
respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-04.)
Discussion
Merits of the Motions
Plaintiff moves
to compel responses from defendant Mary Guidry to (1) Form Interrogatories (Set
Two) and (2) Requests for Production (Set Two).
The court finds Plaintiff
sufficiently shows these motions should be granted. Plaintiff establishes he
propounded these two sets of discovery on August 31, 2023. (Nazarian Decls. re
RFPs and SROGs (collectively, “Nazarian Decls.”), ¶ 5, Exh. A.) On September 1,
2023, defense counsel acknowledged receipt. (Id., ¶ 11, Exh. D.) Defendant
failed to respond by the October 5, 2023 deadline. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant on August 18, 2023. (Id.
at ¶¶ 10, 13, Exh. B.) On October 11, 2023, defense counsel erroneously
maintained that Defendant did not receive Plaintiff’s counsel’s discovery in
question. (Id. at ¶ 15, Exh. F.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff extended the
deadline for Defendant to provide objection-free responses to October 19, 2023.
(Id. at ¶ 7.) Defendant never provided any responses. (Id. at ¶
20.)
Thus, Plaintiff
demonstrates Defendant provided no timely response to the two properly served
sets of discovery. Defendant never served responses despite Plaintiff sending several
meet-and-confer letters, which Plaintiff was not required to do. Defendant does
not oppose these motions, thus failing to show why the court should not grant
them.
Accordingly, the
court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set Two).
The court orders defendant Mary Guidry to serve verified responses, without
objections, to Requests for Production (Set Two), within 30 days of the date of
this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two).
The court orders defendant Mary Guidry to serve verified responses, without
objections, to Special Interrogatories (Set Two), within 30 days of the date of
this ruling.
Requests for Monetary Sanctions
Plaintiff
requests per motion $4,185.00 in attorney’s fees and costs as monetary
sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of record. Plaintiff’s counsel’s
hourly rate is $750. (Nazarian Decls., ¶ 23.) Plaintiff seeks to recover per
motion 5.5 hours and the $60 filing fee. (Id.)
The court finds
Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, but the time requested should
be reduced because some hours do not apply. Plaintiff requests 2.5 hours for
preparing the motion, 2 hours to file a reply brief, and 1 hour to attend the
hearing. (Id.) These motions are unopposed, so the 2 hours for preparing
replies do not apply. The court finds the 2.5 hours for preparing the motion is
excessive. Thus, Plaintiff’s total reduced recoverable amount in attorney’s
fees and costs for one motion is $1,560 ([2 hours * $750/hour] + $60 filing
fee).
Accordingly, the
court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of
record in the reduced amount of $1,560 in attorney’s fees and costs for the motion to compel responses to
Requests for Production (Set Two). The court orders defendant Mary Guidry and her
counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay $1,560 to plaintiff John Robert Kochakji through her
counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of
this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and her counsel of
record in the reduced amount of $1,560 in attorney’s fees and costs for the motion to compel responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two). The court orders defendant Mary Guidry and her
counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay $1,560 to plaintiff John Robert Kochakji through her
counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of
this ruling.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
May 20, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court