Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23STCV28911, Date: 2024-09-13 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. Defendants AB Renovations Corp et al and Jermain Franklin’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatories 1 and 2 and Demand for Documents (Set One) (CRS #0630) is DENIED.

2. Defendants AB Renovations Corp and Jermaine Franklin Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (CRS #0386) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Jermaine Franklin’s Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) (CRS #0340) is GRANTED. Defendant Franklin is ordered to serve further, code-compliant responses within 20 days. Defendants Franklin, AB Renovations Corp., and E& and counsel are ordered to pay sanctions for Motions Nos. 3-5 in the total amount of $1,680 within 20 days.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant AB Renovations Corp.’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (CRS #2068) is GRANTED. Defendant AB Renovations is ordered to serve further, code-complaint responses within 20 days. Sanctions for this Motion are addressed in Motion #3.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant E7 Referrals Inc.’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (CRS #9566) is GRANTED. Defendant E7 is ordered to serve further, code-complaint responses within 20 days. Sanctions for this Motion are addressed in Motion #3.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants AB Renovations Corp., E7 Referrals Inc. and Jermaine Franklin from September to October 2023. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jermaine Franklin, the principal of AB Renovations Corp. and E7 Referrals, Inc., made unwanted sexual advances and penalized her when she refused his advances. In response to her complaints, Defendants terminated her employment. Plaintiff alleges she was also deprived of meal times and rest breaks and subjected to other Labor Code violations.

On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging (1) discrimination on the basis of sex and gender in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA—Hostile Work Environment; (3) harassment in violation of FEHA—Quid Pro Quo; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) nonpayment of wages; (8) nonpayment of minimum wage; (9) nonpayment of overtime compensation; (10) failure to provide meal periods; (11) failure to provide rest periods; (12) unreimbursed business expenses; (13) failure to furnish complete and accurate wage statements; (14) waiting time penalties for nonpayment of wages.

II. Defendants AB Renovations Corp et al and Jermain Franklin’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatories 1 and 2 and Demand for Documents (CRS #0630 filed on 04/16/24)

“[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).)

On February 6, 2024, Defendants sent Plaintiff (1) Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Form Interrogatories (Set Two); and (3) Demands for Documents. (Watkins Dec., 2:17-22.) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Form Interrogatories (Sets One and Two) and the Demands for Documents must be continued for several procedural reasons.

No evidence to support request for further responses vs. initial responses. Defendants’ motion is captioned as one to compel further responses. However, according to Watkins’ declaration, Plaintiff never served any responses to these discovery requests. (Id. at 3:13-14.) Plaintiff disputes this and claims she served responses on March 11, 2024. (Singh Dec., ¶3.) Defendants’ evidence in support of the motion therefore does not support a request to compel further responses but to compel initial responses.

No evidence of sufficient good faith meet and confer effort. Defendants also failed to comply with the meet and confer requirement under CCP §§2030.300(b)(1) and 2031.310(b)(1). Counsel Watkins claims he sent a meet and confer letter on March 22, 2024, but he fails to attach a copy of the letter to his declaration. (Watkins Dec. filed on 4/16/24, 3:3-12.) The parties participated in a phone call on April 3, 2024, regarding other, unrelated discovery. (Id. at 3:8-12.) Defendants filed the motion on April 16, 2024. Defendants’ mailing of a single letter approximately one month before filing the motion does not qualify as a good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue raised in this motion. (CCP §2016.040.) The court also cannot evaluate the sufficiency of the meet and confer letter sent on March 22, 2024, because it is not attached to Watkins’ declaration.

Failure to submit a separate statement in compliance with CRC Rule 3.1345. Defendants also submit a defective separate statement under CRC Rule 3.1345. Defendants’ separate statement fails to set forth the full text of the discovery responses. In fact, the court has no idea what Plaintiff’s purported requests or responses were. A copy of the requests and responses is not attached to the Watkins declaration, nor are they reproduced fully in the separate statement. For this reason, the court cannot evaluate whether further responses are justified.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Sets One and Two) and Demands for Documents (CRS #0630) is DENIED.

III. Defendants AB Renovations Corp and Jermaine Franklin Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (CRS #0386 filed on 05/29/24)

Defendants served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories (Set One) on March 3, 2024, Plaintiff served responses on April 22, 2024. Defendants filed the instant motion to compel on May 29, 2024. Defendants’ motion is continued for much the same reasons stated in connection with Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Rogs and Demands for Documents discussed above.

Insufficient meet and confer. Defendants were required to meet and confer in good faith on each and every issue raised in this motion prior to filing the motion. (CCP §§2016.040 and 2030.300(b)(1).) Counsel Watkins testifies that he contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on May 6, 2024 regarding the April 22, 2024 responses but fails to state the form of contact—letter, phone, email—or the substance of the communication. (Watkins Dec. filed on 5/29/24, 2:17-21.) According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the letter demanded further responses by May 20, 2024 but it failed to identify any defects in the responses themselves. (Singh Dec. filed on June 11, 2024, ¶¶4-5.) Counsel participated in a call on May 9, 2024, in which the Plaintiff informed Defendants that they failed to identify any defects with Plaintiff’s responses. (Id.) Defense counsel purportedly failed to identify any defects and merely argued the merits of the case. (Id. at ¶5.) Defendants filed the instant motion approximately three weeks later on May 29, 2024.

Defendants fail to establish that they met and conferred in good faith. Defendants fail to provide any evidence as to what the May 6 letter contained or the substance of the May 9, 2024 conversation. Defendants made no attempt to meet and confer further, even though the 45/50-day deadline to bring this motion to compel would not have expired for another month.

Separate statement fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1345. Defendants filed several documents purporting to be the separate statement in support of this motion: (1) a document filed on May 14, 2024 that purports to be Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant AB Renovations Corp.’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) and entitled in eCourt as “separate statement”; (2) a “Separate Statement” filed on May 29, 2024 that sets forth the special interrogatories and Defendants’ reasons for seeking further responses; and (3) three volumes of documents filed on June 6, 2024 that lists each discovery request and Plaintiff’s responses thereto.

None of these three sets of documents satisfies the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1345, which requires that the separate statement list each request separately, followed by the allegedly deficient response, followed by Defendants’ statement regarding why a further responses is required. Defendants did not request prior to filing the motion leave to file a “concise outline” in lieu of a separate statement pursuant to CCP §2030.300(b)(2), nor would any of these three sets of documents be considered a “concise outline” of the requests and response in dispute.

The court cannot evaluate the merits of Defendants’ request to compel further responses to their special interrogatories due to the defective separate statement. In fact, it is unclear what interrogatories are at issue or if the special interrogatories were propounded by Franklin, AB Renovations Corp. or Franklin and AB Renovations Corp. Defendants’ May 14, 2024 Separate Statement only lists interrogatories 1-7. Defendants’ May 29, 2024 Separate Statement lists interrogatories 1-11, 13-23, 29, 33-34, 48-50. Defendants’ June 6, 2024 three-volume document list interrogatories 1-50.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (CRS #0386) is DENIED.

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Jermaine Franklin’s Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) (CRS #0340 filed on 07/01/24)

Plaintiff served each of the three Defendants with Requests for Production (Set One) on February 9, 2024. (Singh Declarations filed on July 1, 2024, ¶2.) On March 12, 2024, Defendants each served their responses to the RFPs. (Id. at ¶3.) Based on a review of Plaintiff’s separate statements in support of the motions, Defendants’ responses are deficient and further responses are compelled.

“[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).)

Timeliness of motion. Defendants agreed to extend the date by which Plaintiff would have to file a motion to compel further responses to July 1, 2024. (Singh Dec., ¶8.) The motions were timely filed on July 1, 2024.

Sufficient meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff’s counsel Singh contacted Defense counsel multiple times from April 13, 2024 through June 28, 2024 regarding the deficiency of Defendants’ responses. (Singh Dec., ¶¶4-13.) During the meet and confer attempts, Defense counsel stated numerous times that Defendants would serve code-compliant, further responses but failed to do so. (Singh Dec., ¶¶5, 8, 12, Ex. 4.) Parties’ meet and confer efforts were sufficient.

Separate statements comply with CRC Rule 3.1345. Plaintiff submits separate statements in support of each motion. The separate statements satisfy the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1345.

Defendants’ responses are defective and further responses are proper. Based on a review of the separate statements, Plaintiff is seeking further responses from Defendants E7 and AB Renovations to RFP Nos. 1-160 and from Defendant Franklin to RFP Nos. 1-73.

As the party moving to compel further responses to document requests, Plaintiffs bears the initial burden of establishing good cause to compel further responses. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Plaintiff argues the RFPs are directly relevant to her allegations of Defendants’ violation of wage-and-hour laws and FEHA. Based on a review of the RFPs, they seek documents directly relevant to her claims that Defendants committed violations of the Labor Code and FEHA.

Defendants’ responses are also patently deficient. Defendants’ objections are boilerplate and meritless. Defendants’ responses of compliance, e.g. “ATTACHED” and “To the extent that his defendant has any of these documents, they are attached,” do not satisfy the requirements of CCP §2031.220 governing statements of compliance in full or in part.[1] Defendants’ responses that the RFPs do not apply, i.e. “N/A,” are improper as they do not fall within any of the statutorily acceptable categories of responses to RPFs under CCP §2031.210.[2] In addition, the RFPs seek relevant information and are “applicable” to this action.

Defendants filed a joint opposition to all three motions on July 11, 2024. Defendants’ joint opposition maintains their responses are sufficient, particularly given the number of RFPs served on each of them. Defendants attach documents and further responses they provided in response to the meet and confer attempts. (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses filed on July 11, 2024, Set 2, Exs. 5 and 6.) These further responses do not cure the defects raised by Plaintiff. The responses still fail to comply with CCP §§2031.210 and 2031.220.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (Sets One) from Defendants E7, AB Renovations and Franklin are granted. Defendants are ordered to serve responses in conformity with this order within 20 days.

Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions as prevailing party under CCP §2031.310(h). Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of (1) $6,060 against E7 and counsel; (2) $6,060 against AB Renovations and counsel; and (3) $4,860 against Franklin and counsel. (7/1/24 Singh Declaration ISO MTCF from E7, ¶16; 7/1/24 Singh Declaration ISO MTCF from AB Renovations; 7/1/24 Singh Declaration ISO MTCF from Frankline, ¶16.) The amounts are based on a rate of $600/hr and filing fees of $60 per motion (10 hours on E7 and AB Renovations motions and 8 hours on Franklin’s motions).

Plaintiff’s motions were largely duplicative. Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1680.00 (i.e., 3 hours at $500.00/hour, plus $180.00 in filing fees). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (set one) from E7; (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (set one) from AB Renovations; and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (set one) from Franklin are GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve verified, code-compliant further responses within 20 days.

Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the amount of $1,680.00. Defendants and counsel are to pay the sanctions within 20 days.

IV. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant E7 Referrals Inc.’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (CRS #9566 filed on 07/01/24)

V. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant AB Renovations Corp.’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (CRS #2068 filed on 07/01/24)

[1] “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (CCP §2031.220)

[2] “The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (CCP §2031.310(a).)