Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV06481, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06481    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: 78

 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

MELISSA OSORIO, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

RAMPART INVESTMENT CORP., et al., 

Defendant(s). 

Case No.: 

23STCV06481 

Hearing Date: 

August 7, 2024 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Melissa Osorio (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against defendants Rampart Investment Corp., et al., alleging she was defendants’ property manager for the apartment complex located at 819 W. Imperial Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90044. During her employment, the complaint alleges defendants failed to pay overtime wages, denied breaks, advertised uninhabitable apartment units, and that defendants retaliated against Plaintiff when she repeatedly complained to defendants of the conditions.  

The complaint sets forth eight causes of action for (1) Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (2) Failure To Pay Minimum Or Contractual Wages, (3) Failure To Pay Overtime, (4) Failure To Pay Meal & Rest Breaks, (5) Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements, (6) Failure To Pay Wages Due At Time Of Separation, (7) Failure To Produce Personnel Records (Labor Code § 1198.5), (8) Violation Of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq.  

On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order compelling defendant Rampart Investment Corp. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to (1) Special Interrogatories (Set One) as to Nos. 7, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, (2) General Form Interrogatories – Nos. 3.7, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and (3) Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 201.7, 211.1, 211.2, 211.3, 214.1 and 214.2, 216.1. The set one of special interrogatories, Form Interrogatories – General, and form Interrogatories – Employment Law, were served on Defendant on September 22, 2023. The parties met and conferred and attended an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) on April 18, 2024, in which Defendant provided that supplemental responses would be provided by May 9, 2024. The parties agreed July 11, 2024 would be the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion to compel further. Plaintiff asserts she received no response and served an additional meet and confer letter on June 14, 2024 outlining the deficiencies. 

On August 1, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further. The opposition was due on July 25, 2024; the Court will exercise discretion and consider the untimely opposition. Defendant contends that the motion pertaining to special interrogatories fall outside the scope of the IDC. Defendant argues Plaintiff raised issues with special interrogatories Nos. 4, 16, and 26-28, but the motion brought pertains to Nos. 7, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22, 26-28 and exceeds the scope of the issues raised at the IDC. Defendant avers it has provided responses to all special interrogatories except for Nos. 26, 27, and 28 on the grounds that these interrogatories are not narrowly tailored. 

 

II. PROCEDURAL 

  1. Meet and Confer Requirement 

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b)(1).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿   

The Court finds that Plaintiff met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300 (b)(1). (Decl. Declue ¶7; Exh. J.) 

  1. Separate Statement 

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)  

The Court finds that Plaintiff properly filed a separate statement for the motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. 

  1. Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) 

Pursuant to this Court’s department rules, the parties are expected and encouraged to informally resolve disputes. If an informal resolution is not reached after meeting and conferring, then either party may request that the court conduct an informal discovery conference (IDC) for the purpose of discussing discovery matters in dispute between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.080.) 

Plaintiff’s IDC statement, as relevant to the instant motion, listed (1) Special Interrogatories, Nos. 4, 19, 26-28, (2) Form Interrogatories – General, Nos. 3.7, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1 and (3) Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, No. 216.1. (IDC, March 11, 2024.) 

On April 18, 2024, the parties participated in the IDC, in which Defendant represented supplemental responses to all outstanding discovery requests would be provided by May 9, 2024. (IDC Min. Order, April 18, 2024.) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

CCP § 2030.300(a) provides, “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:¿¿¿ 

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.¿¿¿ 

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.¿¿¿ 

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿ 

Defendant argues it already provided compliant supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories as discussed at the IDC, except as to Nos. 26-28. (Opp. Exh. B.) 

However, Defendant does not address, and therefore does not oppose, Plaintiff’s motion as it pertains to the Form Interrogatories – General and Form Interrogatories – Employment Law. Further, Defendant does not propose a limiting scope as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 26-28. Additionally, the Court notes that Special Interrogatory No. 19 was not provided for in Plaintiff’s separate statement; the Court will not consider any interrogatories not presented in the separate statement. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED in part.¿Defendant is ordered to provide further verified responses to Plaintiff’s (1) Special Interrogatories Nos. 7, 12, 14, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, (2) General Form Interrogatories – Nos. 3.7, 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and (3) Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Nos. 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 201.7, 211.1, 211.2, 211.3, 214.1 and 214.2, 216.1, within fifteen (15) days. 

The Court will discuss Special Interrogatories Nos. 26-28 with the parties at the hearing and may adjust the ruling accordingly. 

 

IV. SANCTIONS 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response. (CCP §2030.300(d).)¿ 

Plaintiff requests for 4 hours of attorney time at $650 per hour for the motion, in addition to $60 for the motion filing fee. A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) Although the Court will award sanctions, the full amount requested is not supported, and shall be reduced. 

Plaintiff is awarded hours to prepare the motion and appear at the hearing total, at a reduced rate of $400 per hour, for a total of $800 in attorney fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded one motion filing fee of $60, as costs.¿¿ 

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and/or its counsel of record. Defendant and/or its counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $860, within twenty (20) days.¿ 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 6, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.