Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV00653, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00653, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00653 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: February 20, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00653

CASE NAME: Dion Asuncion v. Hollywood Park Casino Company, Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Dion Asuncion

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Hollywood Park Casino Company, Inc.

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:

(1) Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

(4) Requests for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:

(1) –(4) – GRANTED. Further verified responses, without objections, are required to be served by March 7, 2025. As to monetary sanctions, the Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT monetary sanctions of $5,000 total, rather than the over $12,000 sought, payable by Defendant and/or its counsel to counsel for Plaintiff on or before March 20, 2025.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff, Dion Asuncion (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Hollywood Park Casino Company, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Battery; (2) Assault; (3) False Imprisonment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Vicarious Liability; (6) Negligent Supervision; and (7) Negligence-Premises Liability.

On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff propounded his Form Interrogatories – General, Set one on Defendant, Hollywood Park Casino Company (“Defendant”). On March 26, 2024, Defendant served responses. However, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s responses were non-responsive, and that on May 9, 2024, Defendant was served with the first of many meet and confer letters. Further, on July 16, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff received

Defendant’s responses. However, on September 11, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with the first of many meet and confer letters.

After numerous back and forth between the parties on Plaintiff’s first set of, an IDC was held by this Court on December 4, 2024. An IDC is not a formal hearing and the Court does not issue orders or make ruling, but rather give the parties an indication of how the Court might likely rule if a formal motion were filed. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff states that defense counsel sent a short email to further respond to the pending discovery, however, that the email was not in compliance and did not contain any signed verifications by Defendant. As such, again, on December 26, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defense counsel with courtesy attempt to resolve the pending discovery. Defense counsel responded that their office would provide further responses when he returned after the holidays. However, Plaintiff contends that due to the unknown due date of Defendant’s further responses, a motion was needed to resolve the lingering dispute. As such, Plaintiff has brought these Motions to Compel Further.

B. Procedural

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed three Motions to Compel Further Responses to his set one of discovery. On February 10, 2025, Defendant filed opposition briefs. On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed reply briefs.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 41

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) ¿

"The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

B. Discussion

Preliminarily, this Court takes note that as explained in Plaintiff’s reply brief, Defendant’s opposition is untimely. While Defendant asserts that this discovery dispute is largely consisting of form over substance, there is no dispute that supplemental discovery was responded to in email format with no verification. The Opposition asserts that counsel looks forward to discussing this with the Court at the hearing, instead of discussing it in its opposition brief or attaching verified further responses that might moot these motions.

The Court requires oral argument from defense counsel explaining the failure to provide verifications to supplemental responses. However, based on this Court’s review of the requests and interrogatories at issue, the Court is tentatively inclined to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further on the grounds that Defendant’s objections are meritless and that VERIFIED further or supplemental responses are required.

C. Sanctions

Plaintiff has also requested sanctions in the amount of $4,110 per motion. This amount is based on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Adam Moloudi (“Moloudi Decl.”) asserting that each motion took 3 hours to prepare, included two meet and confer letters that took an additional 3 hours, anticipates an additional 2 hours to respond to an opposition brief, and anticipates an additional hour at the hearing at an hourly rate of $450 and a $60 filing fee. Although the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate to be reasonable, the Court finds the amount of time spent on each of the motions to be excessive. As such, the Court tentatively awards a total of $5,000 in

monetary sanctions, not the $12,330 sought, payable by Defendant and/or its counsel to counsel for Plaintiff on or before March 20, 2025.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT each of Plaintiff’s motions as well as GRANT Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in an amount lowered after oral argument.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.