Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 22BBCV01075, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01075    Hearing Date: September 9, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

STEVIE MOORE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CENTRAL CASTING, business form unknown; GEP ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22BBCV01075

Hearing Date: September 9, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GEP ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL, SET ONE DEFENDANT GEP ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant GEP ADMINISTRATICE SERVICES, LLC erroneously sued as ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC and CENTRAL CASTING

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Stevie Moore (plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Entertainment Partners, LLC, Central Casting, and GEP Administrative Services, LLC (GEP, collectively, defendants) on November 28, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime, (2) failure to provide meal break, (3) failure to provide rest break, (4) failure to

timely pay all wages due, (5) retaliation, (6) failure to prevent investigate and remedy discrimination harassment and retaliation, (7) hostile work environment, (8) violation of business and professions code section 17200 et seq., and (9) wrongful termination.

Defendant GEP filed the instant motions on June 3, 2024. No oppositions have been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff may serve a request for production of documents and interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020(b).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260(a), 2031.270(a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2030.270(a)-(b).)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for the production of documents or to interrogatories, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production of documents, the party to whom the request is directed waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant GEP served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One on September 13, 2023, by email. (Decl. of Andrew S. Wellman, ¶ 4; Exhs. A, B.) On October 12, 2023, defendant extended the deadline to October 31, 2024. (Decl. of Andrew S. Wellman, ¶ 5.) The parties were optimistic about a resolution when plaintiff’s counsel stopped communicating with defendant’s counsel; defendant’s counsel emailed and/or called plaintiff’s counsel on November 10, November 21, December 6, and January 10, 2024. (Decl. of Andrew S. Wellman, ¶ 6-7.) On February 5, 2024, defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding plaintiff’s missing responses to defendant’s written discovery. (Decl. of Andrew S. Wellman, ¶ 8; Exh. C.) On May 3, 2024, defendant’s counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel stating that it was seeking court intervention in the form of the instant motions. (Decl. of Andrew S. Wellman, ¶ 11; Exh. D.)

The court finds that defendant GEP properly served the written discovery on plaintiff and plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses. Accordingly, the court grants defendant GEP’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS defendant GEP’s motion to compel plaintiff to respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One.

Defendant GEP is ordered to give notice of this ruling.