Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV07743, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 20STCV07743 Hearing Date: February 26, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One & Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One & Request for
Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment Law, Set One & Request
for Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One & Request
for Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to
Deem Facts Stated in Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted & Request
for Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Appearance at Deposition & Request for Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC
Resp. Party: None
The SROGs Motion, the General FROGs Motion, the Employment FROGs
Motion, the RPDs Motion, the RFAs Motion, and the Deposition Motion are all
GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall provide initial responses to the SROGs,
General FROGs, Employment FROGs, and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of this Order.
Plaintiff shall make herself available to sit for a
deposition within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order.
The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.
The Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On February 27,
2020, Plaintiff Felicia McCarron filed her Complaint against Defendant
Sisyphian, LLC on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s employment with
Defendant.
On November
17, 2020, the Court granted in part Defendant’s petition to compel arbitration
and severed a paragraph requiring Plaintiff to pay her own costs of
arbitration. The Court stayed the labor issues in this matter but allowed the
Parties to move to set the case for trial if arbitration had not concluded by
December 31, 2021.
On December
7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion to be relieved as
counsel.
On January
24, 2024, Defendant filed: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set One & Request for Sanctions (“SROGs Motion”); (2)
Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories-General, Set One &
Request for Sanctions (“General FROGs Motion”); (3) Motion to Compel Responses
to Form Interrogatories-Employment Law, Set One & Request for Sanctions
(“Employment FROGs Motion”); (4) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for
Production of Documents, Set One & Request for Sanctions (“RPDs Motion”);
(5) Motion to Deem Facts Stated in Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted
& Request for Sanctions (“RFAs Motion”); and (6) Motion to Compel Appearance
at Deposition & Request for Sanctions (“Deposition Motion”). With each of
these six motions, Defendant filed a Proposed Order.
No
oppositions or other response have been filed.
ANALYSIS:
I.
The Six Discovery Motions
A. Legal
Standard
1.
Legal
Standard for Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a
response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories,
and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the
requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a),
2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the
party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the
demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the
offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (a).)
For a motion to compel, all a propounding
party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the
time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were
directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct.
(1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed]
to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing
party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling,
Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
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 motions for
interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails
to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are
just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a
terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In
lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
2. Legal Standard
for Requests for Admission
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a
response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within
30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.250, subd. (a).)
If the party fails to serve a timely response,
“the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection
to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
The requesting party may then “move for an
order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters
specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction
under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
A court will deem requests admitted, “unless
it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed
has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the
requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.
It is
mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to
serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
3.
Legal
Standard for Compelling Depositions
“If, after service of a deposition
notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or
employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party
under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section
2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce
for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible
thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move
for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the
production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information,
or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.450, subd. (a).)
“If a motion under subdivision (a)
is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the
deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is
affiliated, unless the court 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., § 2025.450, subd. (g).)
B. Discussion
Defendant moves the Court to grant six discovery motions: one
to compel responses to special interrogatories (“SROGs”), two to compel
responses to form interrogatories (“FROGs”), one to compel responses to
requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), one to deem admitted the facts
in the requests for admission (“RFAs”), and one to compel Plaintiff’s
deposition.
Defendant submits evidence via Declarations of Andrew
Garofalo and the actual discovery requests that indicates: (1) all of these
discovery requests were submitted more than thirty days prior to the motions;
(2) no responses have been served; and (3) Plaintiff has not sat for the
noticed deposition.
Plaintiff, who is now representing herself in pro per,
has not opposed these motions.
C. Conclusion
The SROGs Motion, the General FROGs Motion, the Employment
FROGs Motion, the RPDs Motion, the RFAs Motion, and the Deposition Motion are
all GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall provide initial responses to the SROGs,
General FROGs, Employment FROGs, and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of this Order.
Plaintiff shall make herself available to sit for a
deposition within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this Order.
The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.
II. Sanctions
Plaintiff has been litigating this matter without
representation since December 7, 2023. Given that all of these motions were filed
after Plaintiff’s former counsel was relieved of their duties, monetary
sanctions are not appropriate here for any of the motions.
The Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.