Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00028, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00028    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: SEC

LEE v. NORWALK-LA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASE NO.:  20NWCV00028

HEARING: 9/13/22 @ 10:30 AM

#3

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s answers to deposition questions, and production of documents is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the next properly noticed deposition, respond to questions relating to her current employer, and produce documents.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District moves to compel responses to document requests pursuant to CCP §§ 2025.460, 2025.480, 2023.010, and 2023.030.

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”  (CCP § 2025.480(a).)

Plaintiff claims lost income and emotional distress due to the discharge.  Yet, Plaintiff failed to respond to two questions: 1) “What’s the name of your
current employer?”; and 2) “What’s the address of your current employer?” (Pizarro Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 3, 195:14-20.)

Plaintiff failed to assert any legal objections, and therefore, must respond to the questions because she is making claims for economic and noneconomic damages.  Further, Plaintiff failed to produce documents.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the next properly noticed deposition, respond to questions relating to her current employer, and produce documents.

Sanctions:  CCP §§ 2023.030 and 2025.480(j) authorize the court to impose sanctions to the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, 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.

The court finds sanctions are warranted and Defendant’s request of $2,025.00 is reasonable.  Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,025.00, payable within 30 days.