Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV41135, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41135    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff Maricela Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Basta, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on January 30, 2023, alleging causes of action for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (2) disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, (6) retaliation in violation of California whistleblower statute, (7) failure to provide sick leave, (8) failure to reimburse work expenditures in violation of the California Labor Code, and (9) failure to provide employment records in violation of the California Labor Code.

            Plaintiff’s counsel states that on December 6, 2021, Plaintiff served on Defendant “Requests for Production” and “Form Interrogatories.” (Akopyan Decls., ¶ 4.) On or about January 30, 2023, Plaintiff re-served such discovery. (Akopyan Decls., ¶ 5.)

            On August 15, 2023, the parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s August 15, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties agreed and the Court ordered as follows: Plaintiff will email serve defendant by 5:00p.m. the first set of form interrogatories, both general and employment, requests for admissions and requests for production of documents. Defendant will email serve its verified responses within 30 days, September 14, 2023 by 5:00p.m.”

            Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that on August 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel “Plaintiff’s Requests for Production [Set Two] Propounded to Defendant,” as well as Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. Two and Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set No. Two. (Akopyan Decls., ¶ 10, Exs. C, emphasis added.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that on September 15, 2023, Defendant served “Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set No. One.” (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. D, emphasis added.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “Defendant did not produce documents along with the Responses. Defendant did not produce any documents since then.” (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s counsel also indicates that on September 15, 2023, Defendant served “Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (General), Set No. One” and “Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Employment), Set No. One.” (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. D, emphasis added.)

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent meet and confer correspondence to Defendant’s counsel. (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 14, Exs. E.)

On October 16, 2023, the parties participate in another IDC. The Court’s October 16, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, that “Defendant did not file an Informal Discovery Conference Statement and Defendant is unable to discuss allegations that are set forth in Plaintiff’s Informal Discovery Conference Statement filed October 12, 2023. Therefore, the Court finds today's IDC useless and will not contribute to resolving the issues set for in Plaintiff’s IDC Statement. Plaintiff may file their Motions to Compel.”

Plaintiff now moves for an order “(1) compelling [Defendant] to provide further responses to all Requests for Production; (2) compelling Defendant to provide a privilege log; (3) compelling Defendant to produce all documents it has agreed to produce; and (4) imposing monetary sanctions jointly and severally against Defendant and its attorney of record Daniel Bramzon, Esq. in the amount of $6,560.00.” Plaintiff also moves for an order “(1) compelling [Defendant] to provide further verified responses to Form Interrogatories, General No’s. General No’s. [sic] 12.1, 13.2, 15.1, 17.1, and Form Interrogatories, Employment Law, Nos. 200.1, 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 211.1, 216.1, 217.1; and (2) imposing monetary sanctions jointly and severally against Defendant and its attorney of record Daniel Bramzon, Esq. in the amount of $6,560.00.” The motions are unopposed.  

Discussion

A.    Motion to Compel Further Reponses to “Requests for Production”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a) provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” A motion under subdivision (a) shall “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).) In addition, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that Plaintiff moves, inter alia, “for an order: (1) compelling [Defendant] to provide further responses to all Requests for Production; (2) compelling Defendant to provide a privilege log; (3) compelling Defendant to produce all documents it has agreed to produce…” (Mot. at p. 1:5-8, emphasis added.)

As an initial matter, it is unclear which set of requests for production are the subject of the instant motion. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s counsel states that on August 15, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with “Plaintiff’s Requests for Production [Set Two] Propounded to Defendant.” (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C, emphasis added.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel then indicates that on September 15, 2023, Defendant served “Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set No. One.” (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. D, emphasis added.) To the extent Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two are the subject of the motion, Plaintiff does not appear to provide responses by Defendant to such requests. Further, Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not specify which set of requests for production are the subject of the motion.

In addition, Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that she moves for an order compelling Defendant “to provide further responses to all Requests for Production.” (Notice of Motion at p. 1:6, emphasis added.). It is unclear what “all Requests for Production” refers to. In addition, Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the motion references requests for production numbers 2, 14, 40-48, 58, 59, 61-69, 72, 74, 75, 79, 81-91, 94, 96, and 98. Thus, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s motion is directed to all requests in a certain (unspecified) set of requests for production, or only certain requests. In addition, Plaintiff’s separate statement does not appear to specify which set of requests for production are the subject of the instant motion.

The Court notes that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a).) The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s notice of motion is adequate. It is also unclear from the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion which set of requests and which specific requests are at issue.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies the “Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents, and Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production and Request for Sanctions.” 

B.    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a) provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) In addition, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

As an initial matter, it is also unclear which sets of discovery are at issue with respect to Plaintiff’s motion pertaining to “Form Interrogatories.”

As discussed, Plaintiff’s counsel states that on August 15, 2023, Plaintiff served  Defendant with Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. 2 and Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set No. 2. (Akopyan Decls., ¶ 10, Exs. C.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel also states that on September 15, 2023, Defendant served “Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (General), Set No. One” and “Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Employment), Set No. One.” (Akopyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. D.) It is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks an order pertaining to the first or second sets of Plaintiff’s form interrogatories. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order pertaining to the second sets of Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, Plaintiff does not appear to provide copies of any responses by Defendant to such interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s notice of motion states that Plaintiff moves, inter alia, for an order “compelling [Defendant] to provide further verified responses to Form Interrogatories, General No’s. General No’s. [sic] 12.1, 13.2, 15.1, 17.1, and Form Interrogatories, Employment Law, Nos. 200.1, 200.3, 200.4, 201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 211.1, 216.1, 217.1.” (Notice of Motion at p. 1:4-7.) Thus, the notice of motion does not specify which sets of interrogatories are at issue. As discussed, “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a).) The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s notice of motion pertaining to the form interrogatories is adequate.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies the “Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions.”

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions are denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order. 

DATED:  January 16, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court