Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case 21CHCV00725 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00725, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00725 Hearing Date: September 22, 2022 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-22-22

Case #21CHCV00725

Trial Date: 2-14-23

COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Aly Rahim

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

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motions to Compel Responses to 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 December 21, 2021, Defendants answered the complaint.

RULING: Moot, Sanctions.

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

Plaintiff served Defendant on February 15, 2022. [Declarations of Kasim Idrees, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.] Unverified responses were served on April 19, 2022. [Id., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.]

Defendant in opposition maintains responses were timely served, albeit with a delayed verification. Defendant maintains the delayed verifications were the result of corporate officer Kosh Abbas traveling to India to visit a sick parent, but provided verification upon receipt of the motion. Defendant maintains the motion was improperly filed without any meet and confer effort. Defendant also maintains the unverified responses in no way constituted a waiver of objections given the service of substantive responses.

Plaintiff in reply emphasizes the propriety of the motion due to the failure to serve verified responses. The motion was filed after two extensions to provide responses.

The motion was properly filed based on the lack of verification. Unverified responses constitute no response. (Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636.) Plaintiff was not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion. The court acknowledges the argument regarding service of unverified responses and the preservation of objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656.)

The rule as now articulated states:

a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.

(b) If that party is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath on behalf of that party. If the officer or agent signing the response on behalf of that party is an attorney acting in that capacity for a party, that party waives any lawyer-client privilege and any protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010) during any subsequent discovery from that attorney concerning the identity of the sources of the information contained in the response.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250.)

The objections were in fact signed by attorney Laurie Cortez. [Idrees Decl., Ex. 2.] The court therefore finds the objections are preserved.

The court also finds the subsequent verification renders the motion moot.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300."

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The court however imposes sanctions in the amount of $250 joint and severally against both All Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. and counsel of record, to compensate Plaintiff for the costs of bringing the justified motion. (Ibid.) Plaintiff granted two extensions and the verification was only served upon receipt of the motion. Sanctions payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff to give notice to all parties.