Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23STCV08815, Date: 2024-09-10 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.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Further] Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Further] Production of Documents, Set Two, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Crystal Gomez (“Plaintiff”) alleges various Labor Code violations that Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees suffered while employed with Defendants N. Francowitz, Inc. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) and Defendant Nancy Franco (“Franco”).

On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendant, Franco and Does 1-20 for:

2. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197, IWC wage order no. 5;

5. Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Period Compensation (Labor Code § 226.7Failure to Pay Wages in a Timely Manner (Labor Code § 204);

9. For Civil Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (Labor Code §§ 2689 et seq.

“[T]he propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . (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[, and/or that] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)

Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks a monetary sanction in the amount of $2,500 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.300.

On or about June 29, 2023, Plaintiff properly served her SROGs at issue upon Defendant N. Francowitz, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Lacour Decl., § 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff's SROGs sought information related to Defendant's policies for providing adequate meal and rest breaks to aggrieved employees, information regarding aggrieved employees’ rates of pay and schedules, and identification of witnesses and documents in support of Defendant's contentions. (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant requested a month-long extension its deadline to provide responses to the discovery at issue in a lengthy email on July 13, 2023. (Id., ¶ 8.) As Defendant's new August 28, 2023 deadline approached, on or about Saturday August 26, 2023, defense counsel sent yet another email seeking another month's extension. (Id., ¶ 10.) The following Monday morning, on or about August 28, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel again granted Defendant a month-long extension to September 28, 2023. (Id., ¶ 11.) Defendant ultimately did not submit any discovery responses by its deadline of September 28, 2023. (Id., ¶ 13.) Following this, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Responses regarding the numerous discovery responses to which Defendant had not given a response. (Id., ¶ 14.) Prior to these motions being heard by the Court, on or about October 18, 2023 the Parties attended an IDC before the Court where Defendant indicated that it would serve responses without objections. (Id., ¶ 15.) Subsequently, Plaintiff took her discovery motions off calendar. (Id.)

On or about October 31, 2023, Defendant finally served responses to the discovery requests at issue. (Id., ¶ 16.) Upon reviewing Defendant’s responses, however, Plaintiff discovered that several responses were markedly deficient. (Id., ¶ 17.) Notably, Defendant had provided boilerplate objections to several of Plaintiff’s SROGs despite having waived such objections by failing to serve timely responses. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff sent Defendant a detailed meet and confer letter on or about December 12, 2023. (Id., ¶ 18.) Defendant initially responded to Plaintiff’s letter by agreeing to extend Plaintiff’s motion deadline multiple times into February 2024. (Id., ¶ 19.)

During this time in early 2024, the parties also began settlement talks and were working on the details of resolving the case for multiple months afterward. (Id., ¶ 20.) Around May 2024, however, the momentum on the parties (sic) settlement efforts appeared to be petering out. (Id., ¶ 21.) Accordingly, as the instant PAGA discovery was still outstanding, Plaintiff scheduled an IDC with the Court in an attempt to resolve the issues informally. (Id.) At this IDC, Plaintiff explained that the PAGA discovery sought would be necessary to properly present her PAGA claim at trial and that, given the stagnation of resolution talks and the impending trial date, (Id., ¶ 22.) Over the next two months, Plaintiff continued to try and informally resolve this case as well as the instant discovery disputes. (Id., ¶ 23.) As part of that effort, the parties again agreed that Plaintiff’s deadline would be extended to July 22, 2024. (Id.) Unfortunately, Plaintiff has been met with further silence from Defendant regarding both settlement and discovery and accordingly reached out on or about July 11, 2024 to let Defendant know that Plaintiff would need to proceed with discovery given the delays in the case. (Id., ¶ 24.) At no point during any of this time has Defendant provided substantive, code compliant responses to the requests at issue. (Id., ¶ 25.)

The motion is unopposed Defendant is to serve further, Code-compliant responses, without objections, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00. However, Lacour’s declaration does not provide any information as to how the amount was calculated. Therefore, the court will not grant sanctions at this time.

“[T]he demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that. . . (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[,] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive [and/or that] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the production of documents, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Plaintiff also seeks a monetary sanction in the amount of $2,500 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.300.

See Synopsis to Motion #1 [identical Lecour declaration filed with reference to production of documents]

The motion is unopposed. Plaintiff is to serve further, Code-compliant responses, without objections, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

[1] Motions Nos. 1 and 2 were filed on July 24, 2024, and served on the same date (by U.S. mail and electronic delivery) and set for hearing on August 16, 2024. On August 16, 2024, the hearings were continued to September 10, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. The parties waived notice.