Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 22STCV19389, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.

Case Number: 22STCV19389 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Dept: 19

TENTATIVE RULING—Motion1

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiff Tashika Sanderson’s unopposed Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Production, Set Two, Against Defendant, Pacifica Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., Under C.C.P. Section 2031.300 Et Seq. And Request For Costs, Sanctions, And Attorneys Fees Under C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 Et Seq., 2023.030 Et Seq., And 2023.010 Et Seq., Against Defendant, Pacifica Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., And/Or Its Attorneys Of Record, Dariush Adli And/Or Adli Law Group, P.C., In The Amount Of $2,986.50 is GRANTED as follows:

Defendant Pacifica Health Care Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within thirty (30) calendar days of this order.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,311.50 against Defendant Pacifica Health Care Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel of record, Adli Law Group, P.C, jointly and severally, payable within thirty (30) days through Plaintiff's counsel of record, for abuse of the discovery process for failing to respond to a valid method of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d); 2023.030(a).)

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an employment dispute action. Plaintiff Tashika Sanderson (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Pacifica Health Care Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging the following causes of action:

1. Disability Discrimination In Violation Of FEHA;

2. Disability Harassment In Violation Of FEHA;

3. Disability Retaliation In Violation Of FEHA;

4. Failure To Engage In The Mandatory Good-Faith Interactive Process In Violation Of FEHA;

5. Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodations In Violation Of FEHA;

6. Failure To Do Everything Reasonably Necessary To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation From Occuring [sic] In Violation Of FEHA;

7. Interference With CFRA Rights And Retaliation In Violation Of The FEHA & CFRA;

8. Discrimination/Retaliation In Violation Of Labor Code Section 98.6;

9. Failure To Provide Sick Days/Leave & Retaliation In Violation Of Labor Code Sections 246 & 246.5;

10. Wrongful Termination/Adverse Actions In Violation Public Policy;

11. Failure To Pay Wages In Violation Of Labor Code Section 201;

12. Inentional [sic] Infliction Of Emotional Distress;

13. Negligent Hiring And Retention; and

14. Violation Of Business And Profession Code §17200, Et Seq.

Plaintiff filed the instant¿ Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Production, Set Two, Against Defendant, Pacifica Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., Under C.C.P. Section 2031.300 Et Seq. And Request For Costs, Sanctions, And Attorneys Fees Under C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 Et Seq., 2023.030 Et Seq., And 2023.010 Et Seq., Against Defendant, Pacifica Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., And/Or Its Attorneys Of Record, Dariush Adli And/Or Adli Law Group, P.C., In The Amount Of $2,986.50 (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 et seq., Plaintiff moves for an order compelling responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s¿ Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections ¿2031.300 et seq., 2023.030 et seq., and 2023.010 et seq., Plaintiff moves for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or its attorney of record, Dariush G. Adli and/or Adli Law Group, P.C. in the amount of $2,986.50.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.260, subdivision (a) provides that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260(a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides, in relevant part, that:

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:

(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a)-(b).)

Counsel for Plaintiff attests that Plaintiff served the Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on Defendant on June 19, 2023, but that, to date and after multiple extensions, Defendant has not served any responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. (April Ramirez Decl., ¶¶ 5-12.)

Defendant failed to file any opposition, effectively conceding to the merits of the Motion and consenting to the Court granting the relief requested. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) provides, in relevant part, that:

…the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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., § 2031.300(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 provides that:

A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.

(Code Civ. Proc., 2023.040.)

Given the unopposed and therefore undisputed assertion that Defendant failed to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, the Court finds that the issuance of monetary sanctions is warranted.

After consideration of the declaration of April Ramirez, (see Ramirez Decl. at ¶¶ 15-17), and relying on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437), the Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $450.00 per hour is reasonable. The Court also finds 2.5 hours to prepare the instant Motion is reasonable. The Court also awards 1.5 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing. However, given the lack of any opposition, the Court does not award the 2.5 hours requested to review the opposition and prepare a reply. Thus, the Court awards attorney’s fees for 5 hours, for a total of $2,250.00 in attorney’s fees.

The Court also awards $61.50 in costs for the filing fee, (Ramirez Decl. at ¶ 14), for a total award of $2,311.50.

As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,311.50.

TENTATIVE RULING---Motion 2

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiff Tashika Sanderson’s unopposed Motion To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Against Defendant, Pacifica Health Enterprises, Inc., Under C.C.P. Sections 2030.290 Et Seq. And Request For Costs, Sanctions, And Attorneys Fees Under C.C.P. §§ 2030.290 Et Seq., 2023.030 Et Seq., And 2023.010 Et Seq. Against Defendant, Pacifica Health Care Enterprises, Inc., And/Or Its Attorneys Of Record, Dariush Adli And/Or Adli Law Group, P.C., In The Amount Of $2,986.50 is GRANTED as follows:

Defendant Pacifica Health Care Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within thirty (30) calendar days of this order.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

15. Disability Discrimination In Violation Of FEHA;

16. Disability Harassment In Violation Of FEHA;

17. Disability Retaliation In Violation Of FEHA;

18. Failure To Engage In The Mandatory Good-Faith Interactive Process In Violation Of FEHA;

19. Failure To Provide Reasonable Accommodations In Violation Of FEHA;

20. Failure To Do Everything Reasonably Necessary To Prevent Discrimination, Harassment And Retaliation From Occuring [sic] In Violation Of FEHA;

21. Interference With CFRA Rights And Retaliation In Violation Of The FEHA & CFRA;

22. Discrimination/Retaliation In Violation Of Labor Code Section 98.6;

23. Failure To Provide Sick Days/Leave & Retaliation In Violation Of Labor Code Sections 246 & 246.5;

24. Wrongful Termination/Adverse Actions In Violation Public Policy;

25. Failure To Pay Wages In Violation Of Labor Code Section 201;

26. Inentional [sic] Infliction Of Emotional Distress;

27. Negligent Hiring And Retention; and

28. Violation Of Business And Profession Code §17200, Et Seq.

Plaintiff filed the instant¿ Motion To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Against Defendant, Pacifica Health Enterprises, Inc., Under C.C.P. Sections 2030.290 Et Seq. And Request For Costs, Sanctions, And Attorneys Fees Under C.C.P. §§ 2030.290 Et Seq., 2023.030 Et Seq., And 2023.010 Et Seq. Against Defendant, Pacifica Health Care Enterprises, Inc., And/Or Its Attorneys Of Record, Dariush Adli And/Or Adli Law Group, P.C., In The Amount Of $2,986.50 (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 et seq., Plaintiff moves for an order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

DISCUSSION

C. Motion to Compel

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, subdivision (a) provides that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides, in part, that:

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a)-(b).)

Counsel for Plaintiff attests that Plaintiff served the Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Defendant on June 19, 2023, but that, to date and after multiple extensions, Defendant has not served any responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. (April Ramirez Decl., ¶¶ 5-12.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

D. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c) provides, in relevant part, that:

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.290(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 provides that:

(Code Civ. Proc., 2023.040.)

Given the unopposed and therefore undisputed assertion that Defendant failed to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, the Court finds that the issuance of monetary sanctions is warranted.

The Court also awards $61.50 in costs for the filing fee, (Ramirez Decl. at ¶ 14), for a total award of $2,311.50.

As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,311.50.