Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00718, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00718    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49 

Date: 9-20-22 

Case #21CHCV00718 

Trial Date: 2-21-23 

COMPEL 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Aly Rahim 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents 

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

Plaintiff Aly Rahim worked as a “non-exempt” security guard for Defendant All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. from January 2016 through March 2020. Plaintiff alleges working “seven (7) days a week and worked approximately 12-24 hours each shift,” without adherence to labor standards for meal and rest breaks, minimum wages, timely payment of wages, and overtime.  

On September 21, 2021 Plaintiff filed a wage and hour, and unlawful business practices complaint. On February 4, 2022, Defendants answered the complaint.

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed this instant motion.

On September 7, 2022, Defendant filed its opposition.

On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed its reply.

RULING: Moot as to the responses; Granted in Part as to the Sanctions.

Plaintiff Aly Rahim moves to compel responses to Form and Special interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (set one) from Defendant All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc.  

Plaintiff served Defendant on February 21, 2022. [Declarations of Kasim Idrees, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.] Defendant submitted responses on April 19, 2022, but did not verify the responses until May 31, 2022. (Decl. of Cortez, ¶12).

In opposition, Defendant alleges that timely responses were provided to all written discovery, including the instant motion for FROGS and SROGS, and an additional separate motion for Request for Production of Documents. (Opposition, p. 1). Defendant argues that Kosh Abbas, also a Defendant in this case, was in India caring for his ill mother and for this reason, was unable to immediately provide the signed verifications at the time the discovery responses were sent.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to provide timely responses and failed to request any extension to excuse their delay, and therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted.

Here, Plaintiff served all Defendants with discovery requests on February 21, 2022, and requested responses be submitted on or before March 22, 2022. (Motion to Compel, p. 3, ¶1). On March 17, 2022, five days before the due date, Defendant requested a two-week extension to provide discovery responses. (Id ). Again, on April 5, 2022, Defendant requested an additional discovery response. (Id).  The due date after both extensions was April 19, 2022, on which Defendant submitted unverified response. (Idrees Decl., ¶4, Ex. 2).

Defendant alleges that the failure to sign the verification on or before April 19^th was due to his travel and dealing with his mother’s heath and care. (Abbas Decl., ¶10). Upon realizing that the responses sent were not verified, Defendant sent verified responses to opposing counsel on the same day he was notified, which was May 31, 2022 (Id. at ¶11).  However, responses were sent only after Plaintiff had already filed the instant motions on May 24, 2022.

Per the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant submitted unverified responses on April 19, 2022. The Court agrees with Plaintiff in that “unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all.” (See, Garber & Assocs. v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 n.4 [interrogatories]; Food 4 Less Supermkts., Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-58 [demand to produce]; Appleton v. Superior Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36 [RFAs]). However, after Defendant received Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, which filed in this Court on May 24, 2022, Defendant immediately submitted an e-mail to Plaintiff’s attorney on May 31, 2022 with an attached “Verification” form for the unverified discovery motions submitted on April 19, 2022. Therefore, the Defendant’s discovery motions were considered verified and submitted as of May 31, 2022.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents are MOOT as Defendant has already served verified responses as May 31, 2022.

However, sanctions are merited in this instance because Plaintiff has already spent time drafting this motion, and Defendant submitted verified responses only after Plaintiff had to file this motion. Because this is the first discovery motion between the parties, the Court exercises its discretion in awarding sanction in the reduced amount of $1,165 for 1 hour spent preparing the moving papers, 1 hour spent reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, 1 hour attending the hearing on this matter, $65 for filing fees, and $100 for the attorney service fee. (Idrees Decl., ¶5-6).

Therefore, Sanctions will be imposed on Defendant for $1,165 jointly and severally against both All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. and counsel of record are imposed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c). 2031.300, subd. (c).) Payable within 30 days. 

Plaintiff to give notice to all parties.