Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2019-01096563, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Maria Retana seeks orders to compel Defendant ACS Staffing Group, LLC (“ACS”) 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 within 5 days of the date of the hearing, and for monetary sanctions against ACS and their counsel of record, Morley Mason P.L.C., in the total amount of $14,300 for fees and costs incurred in connection with the five motions.

This matter was first heard on 08-11-22.

Defendant did not oppose the motions, but provided verified responses after the motions were filed. Accordingly, the Court has ruled the motion to deem the RFAs admitted was moot. ROA 185.

As to the motions to compel, the Court continued the hearing, and ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint report identifying any remaining disputed issues. Id. The Court reserved ruling on the request for monetary sanctions. Id.

The Court has reviewed the Joint Report (ROA 195) and it appears ACS has failed to provide further responses without objections. Furthermore, ACS does not oppose the issuance of an order granting the motions. Accordingly, the Motions to compel ACS’s responses to the four remaining discovery requests are GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290. 2031.300, 2033.280(b).) ACS is ordered to provide its responses, without objections, within 10 calendar days.

ACS opposes an order granting the requested monetary sanctions.

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).)

Here, as ACS failed to provide timely responses, Plaintiff was forced to file these Motions. Indeed, the responses still remain outstanding. ACS’s position was not substantially justified and there are no circumstances indicating that an award of monetary sanctions would be unjust. Monetary sanctions are therefore GRANTED. ACS and their 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 the Motions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.