Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV02421, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02421    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff Fredy Vera Corona (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Exquisite Apparel Corp. (“Exquisite Apparel”) and Affluent Staffing, LLC (“Affluent Staffing”) (jointly, “Defendants”). On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which contains a single cause of action for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.

On December 1, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting four motions to compel brought by Plaintiff. The Court’s December 1, 2021 Order provides, inter alia, that:

“The Court orders Exquisite Apparel to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and to produce responsive documents to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of notice of this order. 

The Court orders Affluent Staffing to serve complete verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and to produce responsive documents to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of notice of this order. 

The Court further orders Exquisite Apparel and Affluent Staffing to each pay $1,605.80 to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of this order.”

Plaintiff provides evidence that on December 16, 2021, Plaintiff provided notice of the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order to Defendants’ counsel. (Hyun Decl., ¶ 26, Ex. B.) 

In connection with the motion, Plaintiff asserts that Affluent Staffing failed to produce all documents responsive to RFP Nos. 5 and 6 in violation of December 1, 2021 Order. (Hyun Decl., ¶ 14; Mot. at p. 3:25-26.) In connection with the reply, Plaintiff indicates that on September 8, 2022, Defendant produced supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 5 and 6 and produced additional time and payroll records for the aggrieved employees. (Alami Decl., ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff also asserts that Exquisite Apparel has not paid sanctions and has not served verified responses or produced documents in response to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories and requests for production in violation of the December 1, 2021 Order. (Hyun Decl., ¶ 14; Mot. at   p. 3:25-26.)   

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Affluent Staffing to comply with the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order; and for terminating, issue, evidence, and monetary sanctions against Affluent Staffing. Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling Exquisite Apparel to comply with the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order; and for terminating, issue, evidence, and monetary sanctions against Exquisite Apparel. The motions are unopposed.  

Discussion

A.    Motion to Compel Compliance  

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s notice of motion pertaining to Affluent Staffing indicates that Plaintiff seeks “[a]n order compelling Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order by requiring Defendant to produce all documents and information responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 5 and 6 (Aggrieved Employees’ time and payroll records) within ten (10) calendar days of receiving notice of the order.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:10-13.) Plaintiff’s notice of motion pertaining to Exquisite Apparel indicates that Plaintiff seeks “[a]n order compelling Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order by requiring Defendant to provide proper verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs and SROGs and pay sanctions in the amount of $1,605.80 within ten (10) calendar days of receiving notice of the order.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:11-14.)

The Court notes that it does not issue orders to comply with its orders, so no further order is necessary or appropriate to compel compliance with the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order.  

B.    Motion for Sanctions

 Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g).) There are a broad range of sanctions available against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, including the issuance of monetary, evidentiary, contempt, and terminating sanctions. ((Id., § 2023.030.)  

A monetary sanction may be imposed against one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. ((Id., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) An issue sanction may be imposed by way of an order that designated facts shall be taken as established or an order that prohibits any party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. (Code Civ. Proc.,              § 2023.030, subd. (b).) An evidentiary sanction may be imposed by way of an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).)¿¿

                           i.          Terminating Sanctions

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of the reply pertaining to the Affluent Staffing motion indicates that “on September 8, 2022, Defendant produced supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 5 and 6 and produced additional time and payroll records for the aggrieved employees. Plaintiff is reviewing the supplemental production to confirm that it complies with the Court’s December 1, 2021 Order.” (Alami Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also provides evidence that Affluent Staffing’s counsel indicated that Affluent Staffing’s portion of the sanctions had been mailed out. (Hyun Decl.,       ¶ 30, Ex. C.) Thus, the Court does not find that terminating sanctions are warranted against Affluent Staffing. 

The Court also does not find that the circumstances warrant the imposition of terminating sanctions against Exquisite Apparel. The Court notes that other than the motions that were the subject of the December 1, 2021 Order, no previous motion to compel directed to Defendants has been granted, so there is no history of multiple discovery abuses to show that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance. “[T]he sanctioned party’s history as a repeat offender is not only relevant, but also significant, in deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions.” ((Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106.) “A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” ((Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)

                         ii.          Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions

As to both Defendants, Plaintiff seeks an order “issuing an issue sanction directing the following issues be taken as established in the action and prohibiting Defendant from opposing such issue: Defendant violated the California Labor Code (“Labor Code”) and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders (“IWC Wage Orders”) by failing to pay all wages (including minimum, regular, overtime, and double time wages), failing to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failing to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to maintain accurate records of hours worked, and failing to reimburse business expenses to each aggrieved employee for each pay period during the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) Period, i.e., from January 15, 2020 until judgment.” (See Notices of Motion.)

In addition, as to both Defendants, Plaintiff seeks an order “issuing evidence sanctions that Defendant be prohibited from introducing evidence on the following matters: (1) whether Defendant paid Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees all wages (including minimum, regular, overtime, and double time wages) for all hours worked; (2) whether Defendant’s rounding policy and practice favored Defendant by systematically undercompensating Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees; (3) whether Defendant paid Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees wages at the proper rates; (4) whether Defendant required Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to work off-the-clock without compensation; (5) whether Defendant provided Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees with compliant meal periods or paid compensation in lieu thereof; (6) whether Defendant authorized and permitted compliant rest breaks to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees or paid compensation in lieu thereof; (7) whether Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees with accurate itemized wage statements; (8) whether Defendant failed to timely pay the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees all wages due immediately upon termination or within 72 hours of resignation; (9) whether Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for necessary business expenditures; (10) whether Defendant’s conduct was willful or reckless; and (11) whether Defendant engaged in unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.” (See Notices of Motion.)

            As set forth above, Plaintiff provides evidence in connection with his reply that Affluent Staffing produced supplemental responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 5 and 6 and produced additional time and payroll records for the aggrieved employees. (Alami Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, the Court does not find that the requested issue or evidentiary sanctions are warranted against Affluent Staffing.

The Court also does not find that the requested issue and evidentiary sanctions are warranted at this point in time against Exquisite Apparel. Plaintiff provides evidence that Exquisite Apparel’s counsel requested an extension to January 23, 2022 to provided responses and documents, which request was granted by Plaintiff. (Hyun Decl., ¶ 26, Ex. B.) Exquisite Apparel’s counsel then served the responses and documents on January 23, 2022, and indicated that he was still waiting on verifications but anticipated having them shortly. (Ibid.) In addition, the Court again notes that other than the motions that were the subject of the December 1, 2021 Order, no previous motion to compel directed to Defendants has been granted, so there is no history of multiple discovery abuses to show that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance.

                       iii.          Monetary Sanctions

The Court does not find that monetary sanctions are warranted against Affluent Staffing based on the evidence presented. However, the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted for Exquisite Apparel’s failure to comply with the December 1, 2021 Order. Exquisite Apparel did not oppose the instant motion and has not provided evidence that it served verifications as required by the Order.

Mr. Hyun, Plaintiff’s counsel, asserts that he spent 7.5 hours on the motion pertaining to Exquisite Apparel and anticipates spending 0.5 hours to attend the hearing on this matter. (Hyun Decl., ¶ 20.) Mr. Hyun anticipates spending a minimum of 0.5 hours reviewing Exquisite Apparel’s opposition, and a minimum of 3 hours preparing Plaintiff’s reply. (Ibid.) Mr. Hyun also indicates that costs associated with the motion are $231.65. (Hyun Decl., ¶ 24.)

In addition, Mr. Alami, counsel for Plaintiff, indicates that he spent a minimum of 3.5 hours on the motion, anticipates spending a minimum of 0.5 hours to attend the hearing on this matter, and anticipates spending a minimum of 0.5 hours reviewing Exquisite Apparel’s opposition. (Alami Decl., ¶ 4.) 

Because the motion was unopposed, the Court finds that a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Hyun is 8 hours, and that a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Alami is 4 hours.

Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,431.65 ($550 per hour x 8 hours + $231.65) + ($450.00 per hour x 4 hours).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion against Affluent Staffing is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion against Exquisite Apparel is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions and orders Exquisite Apparel to pay $6,431.65 to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of this Order. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Exquisite Apparel is otherwise denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED:  October 6, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court