Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case Number: 23SMCV03050, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03050, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

This case arises from allegations of wrongful termination and disability discrimination in employment.

On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff Steven Guirguis (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motions for an order compelling Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to the following discovery requests and for sanctions:

2. Requests for Production of Electronically Stored Information (“RPD”), No. 1

Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition to each motion, indicating that supplemental responses were provided on January 31, but opposing the requests for sanctions. Plaintiff replies.

A notice of motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified responses, or any supplemental verified responses, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).) Failure to file such a motion within this time period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents. (Ibid.)

Here, the parties extended Plaintiff’s time to compel further responses to January 31, 2025. (Ex. 11.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted.

Plaintiff has filed separate statements with respect to the RPD and FROG in compliance with the Rules of Court.

“The purpose of the discovery rules is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise. In other words, the discovery process is designed to make a trial less a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389 [cleaned up].)

Where a party objects or responds inadequately to discovery requests, a motion lies to compel further responses, and that party has the burden to justify the objections or inadequate responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a) [motion to compel further responses lies “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection”].) “A trial court’s determination of a motion to compel discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. However, when the facts asserted in support of and in opposition to the motion are in conflict, the trial court’s factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [cleaned up].)

Here, Defendant provided the requested supplemental responses to RPD and FROG at issue on January 31, 2025, which Plaintiff does not dispute. Therefore, the motions to compel further responses are moot.

A trial court may sanction a party for engaging in the misuse of discovery, which includes: failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d) provides: “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.” (See also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Here, in connection with each motion, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,760, representing two hours of attorney time at a rate of $850 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.

In opposition, Defendant argues (1) Plaintiff cites the code section for monetary sanctions pertaining to interrogatories, not RPD; (2) Defendant did not oppose the motion, and therefore monetary sanctions are inappropriate under Code Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h); (3) Defendant has not engaged in a misuse of the discovery process; and (4) Defendant served supplemental responses on January 31, mooting the instant motion.

Taking Defendant’s last argument, first, while service of the requested discovery moots the request for that discovery, it does not moot the request for sanctions. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a); Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2004) 101 Cal.App.5th 902, 907.)[1]

Further, Defendant does not deny that monetary sanctions are equally appropriate for misuses of the discovery process with respect to service of responses to the RPD as they are for the FROG (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010; § 2030.300, subd. (d) [interrogatories]; § 2031.300, subd. (c) [RPD].)

Such misuses of the discovery process include “failing to respond to or submit to an authorized method of discovery” “making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” and “making an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), and (f).)

Defendant argues that it did not engage in a misuse of discovery because it always indicated it intended to provide responses, and indeed did provide the responses on January 31, 2025, which were delayed by the impacts of the Los Angeles wildfires.

However, Defendant has not provided a declaration substantiating that the delay was caused by the Los Angeles wildfires. Further, because Defendant did not oppose the merits of the motion, it does not deny that it made, without substantial justification, unmeritorious objections to the requested discovery.

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions, in part, in the amount of $2,670.00 against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company and its attorney of record, Christopher M. Habashy of Baker & Hostetler LLP.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to FROG and RPD are denied as moot. However, because Defendant failed to timely respond to an authorized method of discovery and made, without substantial justification, unmeritorious objections to discovery, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted in part.

The Court orders Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company and its attorney of record, Christopher M. Habashy of Baker & Hostetler LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,670.00 to Plaintiff, through Plaintiff’s counsel of record, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

[1] “[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses…the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id. at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.” (Id. at p. 408.) If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.” (Id. at p. 409; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].)

DEPARTMENT	207
HEARING DATE	February 26, 2025
CASE NUMBER	23SMCV03050
MOTIONS	Motion to Compel Further Responses to (1) Request for Production of Documents, set 1 and (2) Form Interrogatories
MOVING PARTY	Plaintiff Steven Guirguis
OPPOSING PARTY	Defendant Ralph’s Grocery Company