Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 21STCV05692 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV05692, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05692 Hearing Date: January 20, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Carlos Bravo

Resp. Party: Defendant Hooman Nissani

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Carlos Bravo

Resp. Party: Defendant Hooman Nissani

Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s RPDs Motion is GRANTED in part. Defendant is ordered to produce responses to RPDs 11–13 and 15–17 within five (5) court days. Monetary sanctions are awarded for Plaintiff and against Defendant and his Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $6,246.60.

BACKGROUND:

On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff Carlos Bravo filed his Complaint against Defendants Hooman Nissan of Culver City, Inc., Nissani Bros, and NBA Automotive, Inc. on causes of action regarding Plaintiff’s prior employment with Defendants.

On May 28, 2021, Defendant NBA Automotive, Inc. filed its Answer.

On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff amended his Complaint by substituting Doe 1 with RHN, Inc.

On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff amended his First Amended Complaint by substituting Doe 2 with Hooman Nissani.

On April 20, 2022, Defendant Hooman Nissani filed his Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff amended his First Amended Complaint by substituting Doe 3 with RHN, Inc.

On October 6, 2022, Defendant RHN, Inc. filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“SROGs Motion”); and (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“RPDs Motion”). For both motions, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; and (2) Declaration of Jay S. Rothman.

On January 9, 2023, the Court grants the Ex Parte Application to Specially Set and Shorten Time regarding the motions, ordered the oppositions to be filed and served by January 17, 2023, and ordered the replies to be filed and served by January 18, 2023.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant Hooman Nissani (“Defendant”) filed: (1) Opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROGs Opposition”); and (2) Opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (“RPDs Opposition”). For each opposition, Defendant filed his Separate Statement.

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Replies (respectively, “SROGs Reply” and “RPDs Reply”). With each reply, Plaintiff filed: (1) Declaration of Jay S. Rothman; and (2) Proof of Service.

ANALYSIS:

I. Legal Standard for Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production

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. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

II. Discussion

A. Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to provide substantive answers to four special interrogatories and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,373.30 against Defendant and Defense Counsel. (SROGs Motion, p. 5:10–13.)

Defendant claims that he has provided verified responses to each of the four interrogatories. (SROGs Opposition, p. 2:20.) Plaintiff confirms that responses to the special interrogatories have been served. (SROGs Reply, p. 3:24–27.)

As the responses have been served, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion. The Court will consider the issue of sanctions further below.

B. Requests for Productions of Documents

1. The Requests

Plaintiff propounded upon Defendant the following requests for production of documents:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS which COMPRISE or RELATE TO YOUR payroll records CONCERNING PLAINTIFF during PLAINTIFF’s employment with YOU.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which REFLECT or EVIDENCE the number of hours worked by PLAINTIFF during the time that PLAINTIFF was employed by YOU, for each and every payroll period worked by PLAINTIFF.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which REFLECT or EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’s arrivals and departures at Defendant RHN, INC., including, without limitation PLAINTIFF’s time cards, timesheets, electronic information, or other documents evidencing each of the particular days and number of hours worked by PLAINTIFF for YOU.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which REFLECT or EVIDENCE wages paid to PLAINTIFF by YOU, including, without limitation check registers, check stubs, pay stubs, cancelled checks, computer entries, and records of AND/OR receipts for cash payments.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which REFLECT, COMPRISE, EVIDENCE or RELATE TO YOUR payroll withholding, payroll reporting, and payments of tax withholding by YOU, including without limitation correspondence, notes, e-mails, memorandum, cancelled payroll checks (including microfiche copies), records of bank deposits, and including any and all accounting, payroll, and tax records for YOU, which in any way REFER TO or EVIDENCE YOUR payroll practices CONCERNING PLAINTIFF.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS indicating, referring to, or evidencing, in any way whatsoever, PLAINTIFF having enrolled in any health plan covering either medical and/or dental and/or vision, including but not limited to, any deductions made for plan compensation from said insurance when employed at RHN, Inc.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS indicating, referring to, or evidencing, in any way whatsoever, DEFENDANT having enrolled PLAINTIFF in any health plan covering either medical and/or dental and/or vision, including but not limited to any deductions made for plan compensation from said insurance during his employment at RHN, Inc.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing, reflecting DEFENDANT'S payment to any entity in conjunction with PLAINTIFF'S enrollment in any health plan covering either medical and/or dental and/or vision during his employment at RHN, Inc.

2. Analysis

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to provide substantive answers to eight requests for production of documents and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,298.30 against Defendant and Defense Counsel. (RPDs Motion, p. 7:1–5.)

Among other things, Defendant claims that he has provided verified responses, produced all responsive documents, and made extensive efforts to locate any other documents which it may have. (RPDs Opposition, p. 2:12–15.) Defendant also argues: (1) that Plaintiff failed to make a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve this dispute; and (2) that Plaintiff is making the wrong motion since the issue is that Defendant is still attempting to provide an initial response and not a further response. (Id. at pp. 2:16–17, 3:8–10.)

Unlike with the special interrogatories, Plaintiff claims that no documents have been produced in response to these requests for production — not before the RPDs Motion was filed, and not since. (RPDs Reply, pp. 2:16–17, 3:1.) Plaintiff explains the prior efforts made to obtain this discovery and how Plaintiff’s prior communications with Defendant do make this a properly a motion to compel further response. (Id. at p. 2:4–22.) Plaintiff also notes how at the Ex Parte Hearing on January 9, 2023, the Court ordered the documents produced by January 17, 2023. (Id. at p. 2:25–28.) Finally, Plaintiff attaches a recently-taken deposition of one of Defendant’s employees that indicates Defendant is only at the last minute beginning a serious search for this discovery. (Decl. Rothman for RPDs Reply, Ex. N.)

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to file any response to the requests for production of documents. In addition, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s arguments. With the exception of RPDs 10 and 14, Plaintiff is entitled to the discovery requested. The issue with RPDs 10 and 14 is that they are overbroad and request far too much documentation. RPD 10 is overbroad in that it could request documents related to other employees, and RPD 14 is overbroad in that it could request documents that are not actually relevant for Plaintiff’s causes of action. Both Requests for Production of Documents 10 and 14 use the term “relate to”; since virtually anything relates to anything, it would be impossible to determine if defendant complied with these Requests for Production of Documents.

The rest of the RPDs are reasonable and request discoverable information.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s RPDs Motion. Defendant shall have five (5) court days to serve responses to RPDs 11–13 and 15–17.

The Court now considers the issue of sanctions.

C. Sanctions

Regarding the SROGs, the Court notes that the SROG requests were propounded on November 9, 2022, and the responses to the SROGs were served on January 16, 2023, which was the day before the opposition was due. (SROGs Motion, p. 1:14–15; Defendant’s Separate Statement for SROGs, p. 11.) The Court notes that these were exceedingly simple interrogatories to answer, as they only asked for addresses that Defendant clearly should have known. Indeed, the only answer to each of the four interrogatories at issue was the following: “RHN Inc. 5750 Mesmer Culver City, California 90230.” (SROGs Opposition, Ex. A, pp. 3:19–20, 4:10–11, 5:1–2, 5:18–19.)

Regarding the RPDs, the Court found above that Defendant has failed to provide a response at all.

Defendant and his Counsel have failed to serve a timely response to the special interrogatories, and Defendant and his Counsel have failed to serve any response to the requests for production of documents. The Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate Defendant or his Counsel acted with substantial justification or that there other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Defendant and his Counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff requests $5,373.30 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and his Counsel for the SROGs Motion and $7,298.30 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and his Counsel for the RPDs Motion. Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that he charges $700 per hour, that he spent 7.5 hours on the SROGs Motion, and that he spent 10.25 hours on the RPDs Motion. (Decl. Rothman for SROGs Motion, ¶¶ 15–16; Decl. Rothman for RPDs Motion, ¶¶ 11–12.) Costs for the two motions are $246.60.

The Court finds that both the hourly rate and the number of hours billed for these motions is excessive. The Court will award fees in the amount of $6,000.00, for 12 hours at $500.00 per hour. With the inclusion of costs, the Court awards monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendant and his Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $6,246.60.

III. Conclusion