Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV31358, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV31358 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to (1) First Set of Request for Production of Documents, (2) First Set of Special Interrogatories, (3) Form Interrogatories - Employment Law to Defendant, and (4) Requests for Admissions is GRANTED.
Defendant Quik Tow LLC is Ordered to provide responses without objections.
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,890.00 against Defendant Quik Tow LLC and its counsel of record.
Plaintiff is also ordered to pay the additional filing fees for the motions to compel.
Background
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff Fermin Garcia filed a Complaint against Defendants Quik Tow LLC; Ignacio Gonzalez; and Does 1 to 20. The Complaint alleges causes of action for:
1) Failure To Provide Meal and Rest Periods [Cal. Lab. Code §§226.7, 512];
2) Failure To Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination: Waiting Time Penalties [Cal. Lab. Code § 201-203];
3) Failure To Pay All Wages Earned [Cal. Lab. Code § 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194,1194.2, 1198];
4) Unlawful Deduction and/or Underpayment of Wages [Cal. Lab. Code § 221, 222, 223 and 224];
5) Failure To Pay Overtime Wages [Cal. Lab. Code § 510, 21.5, AND 1194];
6) Failure To Issue Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226, 226.3];
7) Failure To Timely Produce Personnel File [Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5]; and
8) Violations Of California’s Unfair Competition Act [Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.].
On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a single motion to compel Defendant Quik Tow LLC to provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”), First Set of Special Interrogatories (“SROGS”), First Set of Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (“FROGS”), and Requests for Admission (“RFA”).
No opposition or reply has been filed.
Legal Standard
Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)¿ A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿ Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿¿
¿
¿If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿
Discussion
Motions to Compel Initial Discovery
On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant Quik Tow LLC (“Quik Tow”) with Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”), First Set of Special Interrogatories (“SROGS”), First Set of Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (“FROGS”), and Requests for Admission (“RFA”). (Banayan Decl. ¶ 2, Exs. A-B.) Despite meeting and conferring with Defense counsel, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶¶ 2-9, Exs. C-J.)
On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a single motion seeking to compel discovery as to the RPD, FROGS, SROGS, RFA, and sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion.
As Defendant Quik Tow has failed to comply with its discovery obligations, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
However, Plaintiff improperly combined four discovery motions into a single motion. (See Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011) [“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”]) Filing multiple motions as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.
Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. (See Gov. Code, § 70617 subd. (a).) Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Plaintiff only paid one filing fee for what should have been four separate discovery motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay the additional filing fees.
Request for Sanctions
Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion requests sanctions in the amount of $2,820.00 against Defendant Quick Tow LLC and its counsel of record. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted as Defendant Quik Tow LLC failed to comply with its discovery obligations and Defense Counsel failed to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery request despite making assurances that responses would be provided. (Banayan ¶¶ 2-9, Exs. C-J.)
Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $550.00 per hour and Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the request for sanctions is based on 5.0 hours preparing and arguing the motion. (Banayan Decl. ¶ 11.) In addition, Plaintiff requests $70.00 for an estimated filing fee. (Id.)
As the Motion was not complex and remains unopposed and no reply has been filed, the Court awards Plaintiff $1,650.00 in sanctions for 3.0 hours of work plus $240.00 in costs for filing fees ($60.00 x 4 = $240). In total, the Court awards Plaintiff’s sanctions in the amount of $1,890.00 against Defendant Quik Tow and its counsel of record.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to (1) First Set of Request for Production of Documents, (2) First Set of Special Interrogatories, (3) Form Interrogatories - Employment Law to Defendant, and (4) Requests for Admissions is GRANTED.
Defendant Quik Tow LLC is Ordered to provide responses without objections.
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,890.00 against Defendant Quik Tow LLC and its counsel of record.
Plaintiff is also ordered to pay the additional filing fees ($60 per motion) for the motions to compel, $240.00.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.