Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV19781, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19781    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to: (1) Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set 1); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Eugene Garcia

Resp. Party:    Defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District and Michael Bregy

Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff Eugene Garcia filed his Complaint against Defendants Beverly Hills Unified School District and Michael Bregy on causes of action that arose from Plaintiff’s employment and subsequent termination of employment with Defendants.

On September 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

On October 7, 2021, Defendants filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to: (1) Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set 1); and (2) Request for Monetary Sanctions, against Defendant and Its Counsel, Jointly and Severally (“SROGs Motion”). In support of the motion, Plaintiff concurrently filed his Proposed Order.

On April 11, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposition.

On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply.

On April 19, 2023, Defendants filed their Objection to Plaintiff’s Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

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.      The Special Interrogatories

On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff propounded his special interrogatories (“SROGs”) on Defendants. (SROGs Motion, Exh. 3, p. 20.)

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Defendants to serve verified responses to the SROGs. (SROGs Motion, p. 6:10–11.) Plaintiff claims that no discovery responses were served, whether verified or unverified. (Id. at p. 3:1–2.)

Defendants oppose the SROGs Motion, arguing that the SROGs Motion is moot because the responses were served on March 27, 2023. (Opposition, p. 6:10–11.) Defendants provide as evidence the responses to SROGs that were served on Plaintiff. (Id. at Exh. 6.)

In his Reply, Plaintiff argues: (1) that the SROGs Motion is timely; and (2) that Defendants’ responses are not substantially compliant. (Reply, pp. 2:25, 3:7.)

Defendant filed an Objection to the Reply, arguing that it should be disregarded because it was late filed on April 19, 2023, which is only three court days before the April 24, 2023 hearing on the SROGs Motion. (Objection to Reply, p. 2:6–11.)

The Court finds that the SROGs Motion is moot because responses have been served. The Court overrules as irrelevant Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s Reply because none of Plaintiff’s arguments in the Reply are germane to the issues at hand.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion.

B.      Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel for failure to timely serve verified responses to the SROGs. (Motion, pp. 5:27–28, 6:1–14.)

Defendants argue that monetary sanctions would be inappropriate here because Plaintiff acted unreasonably throughout this process. (Opposition, pp. 6–7.) Defendants claim that Plaintiff only followed up regarding discovery in late February 2023 — almost two years after serving the SROGs and just a few months before trial. (Id. at pp. 3:26–28, 4:1–25.) In contrast, Defendants submitted their verified responses by the end of March 2023. These arguments are supported by the evidence both Plaintiff and Defendants submitted. (SROGs Motion, Exhs. 4–6; Opposition, Exhs. 3, 5–7.)

Plaintiff argues in his Reply that sanctions are appropriate because the responses to the SROGs are allegedly noncompliant. (Reply, p. 4:7–13.) However, this argument is irrelevant to whether sanctions should be granted for failure to timely respond to the SROGs.

The Court finds that there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Specifically, Plaintiff’s years-long wait to follow up on its own discovery requests, matched with Defendants’ prompt action on the issue once notified an issue existed, makes the imposition of a sanction on Defendants unjust. Thus, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions here. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.