Judge Peter Wilson, Case 2019-01096563 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2019-01096563, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Maria Retana seeks orders to compel Defendants to provide objection free, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s first set of (1) Form Interrogatories - General, (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment, (3) Special Interrogatories, and (4) Requests for Production of Documents, and (5) to deem the first set of Requests for Admissions (collectively, Discovery Requests) admitted, and for monetary sanctions against Defendants Bar Bakers, LLC (Bar Bakers) and ACS Staffing Group, LLC (ACS) (collectively, Defendants) and their counsel of record, Morley Mason P.L.C., in the total amount of $28,600 for fees and costs incurred in connection with the motions.

Plaintiff presents evidence the responses to the Discovery Requests were due on September 28, 2021. ROA 99, Omnibus Haritoonian Decl., ¶¶5-7 and Exs. 3 and 4.

Defendant Bar Bakers

Defendants have not opposed the Motions but filed their responses to the Discovery Requests after these Motions were filed. ROA 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, and 161. None of Bar Baker’s responses were verified (ROA 153, 155, 157, 159 and 161) but ACS filed verifications for its responses. ROA 163.

Plaintiff is correct that Bar Bakers’ failure to verify its responses is tantamount to no response. (Appletone v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [as to RFA]; Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4^th 813, 817 fn. 4 [citing this rule favorably in the context of SI].) Because Bar Bakers did not timely respond, all objections to the Discovery Requests are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Motions as to Bar Baker’s responses to the Discovery Requests are GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290. 2031.300, 2033.280(b).) Bar Bakers is ordered to provides responses to the Discovery Requests (other than the Requests for Admissions), without objections, within 10 days.

As to the Requests for Admissions, the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests is hereby deemed admitted. (Code of Civ. Proc. 2033.280(b).)

Sanctions are available on motions to compel responses to discovery requests and to deem requests for admissions admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) (“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response … 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. § 2033.280(c) (mandatory sanctions for failure to serve a timely responses to RFA necessitating motion).) Sanctions may be awarded even in the absence of opposition. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1348(a).)

Since Defendant Bar Bakers’ failure to provide timely responses necessitated the motions, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED but in a reduced amount because the Motions are relatively straightforward and routine. Because, for the reasons noted below, the motions as to ACS are continued, one half of the reasonable fees and costs incurred are granted as against defendant Bar Bakers and its counsel, as follows: Defendant Bar Bakers and its counsel of record, Morley Mason P.L.C., jointly and severally, are ordered to pay within 30 days the total amount of $3,650 (one half of 20 hours x $350 per hour and one half of $300 in costs (at $60 per motion)) to Plaintiff for the reasonable fees and costs incurred in connection with these motions. Defendant Bar Bakers’ position was not substantially justified and there are no circumstances indicating that an award of monetary sanctions would be unjust.

Plaintiff is hereby Ordered to file a proposed Order as to this ruling for defendant Bar Bakers, within five court days.

Defendant ACS

ACS provided verified responses to the Discovery Requests after the motions were filed. The Motion to deem the RFAs admitted is MOOT (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c)), but that motion is not moot to the extent it requested full and complete responses without objections. Accordingly, all of the Motions to Compel as to ACS are CONTINUED to September 29, 2022. Plaintiff and ACS are ordered to meet and confer within 10 days. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the sufficiency of the responses, the parties are required to file a joint supplemental brief identifying the issues that remain at least 9 court days prior to the continued hearing.

The Court reserves ruling on the Motions for monetary sanctions as it pertains to ACS, until the continued hearing.

The status conference is continued to September 29, 2022 at 2 p.m.

Plaintiff to give notice.