Tentative Ruling

 

HEARING DATE: January 18, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00710 

CASE NAME: Rafael Maldonado v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Kanesha La Veta Lawson (erroneously sued and served as Kenesha La Veta Lawson) 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Rafael Maldonado (No Opposition) 

 

TRIAL DATE: June 9, 2025 

MOTION: (1) Request for Sanctions 

 

Tentative Rulings: (1) Request for Sanctions is GRANTED against the law firm representing Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $2,500, payable by February 1, 2024.  The Motions to Compel were necessitated by a failing of the Plaintiff’s law firm, not just the individual attorney.  

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

 

A. Factual

 

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff, Rafael Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc, Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Kenesha La Veta Lawson, Flexdrive Services, LLC, Ari Fleet LT, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Entrustment; and (3) Negligent Hiring Supervision & Retention.  

 

Defendant Kanesha LaVeta Lawson (“Defendant Lawson”) propounded the first set of discovery requests on Plaintiff on August 14, 2023. Defendant Lawson notes that she served courtesy copies via email to Plaintiff on the same date. The deadline to respond was September 18, 2023. Prior to the deadline, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension to provide responses until September 22, 2023. However, Defendant Lawson contends that Plaintiff failed to abide by the second deadline, but in an effort to avoid intervention, a third extension was provided to allow Plaintiff to provide responses by September 29, 2023. Defendant Lawson notes that as of the date she filed this motion, she has not received any responses from Plaintiff.  

 

On November 30, 2023, this Court found the Motions to Compel mooted as Plaintiff had provided untimely responses the day before the hearing for Defendant’s motions to compel.  However, this Court continued the hearing on the motion for sanctions in the hope that the parties might negotiate and resolve the issue without further court intervention.  January 18, 2024 is the date of that continued hearing to which this tentative ruling pertains. 

 

 

 

B. Procedural

 

On October 18, 2023, Defendant Lawson filed these motions to compel responses with the concurrently filed requests for sanctions. No opposition had been filed. On November 21, 2023, Defendant Lawson filed a notice of non-opposition.  

 

After the hearing on the Motions to Compel, on January 4, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff, Evan Ghaffari, filed a declaration in opposition of the motion for sanctions. Mr. Ghaffari sought leniency on monetary sanctions because his firm’s prior handling attorney left the firm and, implicitly, dropped the ball on providing discovery responses.  He seemed concerns that he himself would be named as the person against who a sanctions order might be entered, even though he had no involvement with this case before December and acted diligent upon learning of his predecessor’s missed deadlines.   

 

On January 10, 2024, counsel for Defendant, Kanesha La Veta Lawson filed a declaration in support of monetary sanctions. In that declaration, Mr. Schrieffer detailed the chronology of events and reiterated his request for $5,900 in monetary sanctions for the four motions to compel initial responses plus meet and confer efforts.  Defense counsel did not reduce the per-motion amount of his request despite the fact that no oppositions were filed, no reply briefs were filed, and only a single court reporter rather than four court reporters were used for the original motion hearing.  

II. ANALYSIS

 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.(CCP. §§ 2030.290(c), 2030.300(d), 2031.300(c) ,and 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id.) 

 

In Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, he reiterates that the original deadline for the discovery responses was inadvertently mis calendared due to a clerical error. (Declaration of Evan Ghaffari (“Ghaffari Decl.”), ¶ 3.) He also notes that attorney David Esfeh, who was previously handling this case at the law firm, departed from the firm on December 12, 2023, without having resolved the outstanding discovery requests or motions to compel.  Ghaffari states he was assigned to the case the following day, on December 13, 2023, which was when he became aware of the missed deadline. (Ghaffari Decl., ¶ 4.) Ghaffari notes that upon learning of the oversight, he took immediate action to address the issue, and diligently worked on the discovery responses and sent them to defendant on December 21, 2023. (Ghaffari Decl., ¶ 5.) Based on this, Ghaffari requests this Court provide leniency and deny the request for sanctions.  

 

In Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, he notes that immediately after the November 30, 2023 hearing, Defendant reviewed Plaintiff’s untimely responses and determined the answers were violative of several Code requirements. (Declaration of Maxwell R. Schrieffer (“Schrieffer Decl.”), ¶ 8.) As such, Defendant’s counsel notes that he provided a third meet and confer letter to Plaintiff with a deadline to provide amended responses by December 8, 2023. (Schrieffer Decl., ¶ 8, Exhibit A.) Schrieffer notes that on December 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel responded requesting a two-week extension, but that given the fact the discovery was propounded on August 14, 2023, Defendants only provided a one-week extension. (Schrieffer Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel notes that Plaintiff did not provide responses within this new deadline, and two days after the deadline had passed, Defendant’s counsel notified Plaintiff’s counsel that because of the untimely amended responses, Defendant would be seeking additional court relief. (Schrieffer Decl., ¶ 10.) Defendant then notes, as Plaintiff did, that Plaintiff’s counsel reached out and notified that former counsel, Esfeh, was no longer with Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm, and the parties agreed to a new deadline of December 22, 2023. On December 21, 2023, Schrieffer notes Plaintiff’s counsel provided the amended responses.  

 

However, despite this, Defendant’s counsel notes that Plaintiff’s former counsel, Mr. Esfeh, knew, and had ample knowledge of the deadlines, but failed to abide by them, effectuating the necessity of Defendant’s four motions. Based on this, Defendant’s counsel contends that sanctions should still be awarded. The Court agrees.  The failure to respond to discovery was a failure of the law firm, not an individual lawyer who is no longer employed by that law firm. 

Here, Defendant Lawson’s requests for sanctions, filed concurrently with her moving papers for the motions to compel, requested sanctions in the amount of $1,475 per motion, totaling $5,900. Defendant Lawson’s request for sanctions is based on Teresa M. Mayer’s Declaration. In her declaration, she notes that her office has incurred a filing fee of $60, that her firm’s billing rate on this matter is $155 per hour, and that she spent approximately two hours preparing each motion. Mayer notes that she anticipated spending one hour reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition to each motion and drafting a reply brief, and one hour attending a hearing on each motion. Plaintiff also requested $795 for a Court reporter, for each of four motions set the same date and time.  The Court notes that no opposition was filed to the Motions to Compel. The Court also notes that the $795 court reporter fee is requested on each of the four motions as well as the $155 for the hour allocated for the hearing of each of the four motions. As such, the Court GRANTS the Request for Sanctions in the lowered amount of $2,500. This number reflects the requested total minus the ¾ duplicative court report fees, minus the hour per motion requested for reviewing the opposition that was never filed and preparing a reply brief, allowing a half hour for a Statement of Non-Opposition filed as to each of the four motions (rather than a single consolidated statement of non-opposition), and minus the ¾ of the duplicative hours intended to spend at the hearing. This new total is to be charged against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s law firm, not the individual attorney, and paid to counsel for Defendant by February 1, 2024.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of the ruling.