Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV36225, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV36225 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: July 25, 2022 TRIAL DATE: December
1, 2022
CASE: Jessica Magee v. Cast Parts, Inc., et
al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV36225 
(1)
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT CAST PARTS,
INC. (SET THREE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(2)
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) TO DEFENANT CONSOLIDATED PRECISION PRODUCTS CORP.;
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(3)
MOTION
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE;
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: (1) (2) (3) Plaintiff Jessica Magee
RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) Defendant Cast
Parts, Inc.; (2) Defendant Consolidated Precision Products, Inc.; (3) Defendant
Robert Benson
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
In their Complaint filed on September 22, 2020, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants retaliated against her for reporting discrimination and
harassment of her based on race. She also alleges discrimination, harassment,
Labor Code claims, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Plaintiff moves to compel further
responses from Defendant Cast Parts Inc. to Special Interrogatories (Set Three)
Nos. 15 through 24, and requests monetary sanctions.
Plaintiff also moves to compel
further responses from Defendant Consolidated Precision Products Corp. (CPP) to
Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 8 through 17, and Form Interrogatories –
General (Set One) Nos. 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, and 12.6, and requests monetary
sanctions.
In addition, Plaintiff moves to
compel production of documents pursuant to a statement of compliance with a
production of documents request from Defendant Robert Benson, and requests
monetary sanctions.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses from Defendant Cast Parts with respect to Special
Interrogatories (Set Three) Nos. 15 through 24 is GRANTED. Defendant is to
provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of
the date of this order.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions from Defendant Cast Parts and its counsel, jointly and
severally, is GRANTED in the amount of $2,617.50.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant CPP with respect to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 8 through 17 is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide
verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the
date of this order.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant CPP with respect to Form
Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 3.7,
4.1, and 4.2, and DENIED as to Interrogatory 12.6. This order is conditioned on
Plaintiff paying the $60 filing fee for an additional motion. Defendant is to provide verified,
code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this
order.
Plaintiff’s request for
Sanctions against Defendant CPP and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally,
is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,500.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Production Pursuant to Statement of Compliance from Defendant
Benson is GRANTED.
Defendant is to produce the responsive documents within 30 days of the date of
this order.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions from Defendant Benson and his counsel is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) From
Defendant Cast Parts, Inc.
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses from Defendant Cast Parts, Inc. to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 15 through 24.
//
Legal Standards
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court
may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the
court finds that: “(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[;
or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”
The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure
to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.
Meet and Confer
A party making a
motion to compel further responses must include a declaration stating facts
showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues
presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2016.040, 2030.310(b).)
Plaintiff’s counsel states
that he attempted multiple times to contact defense counsel by email and
telephone to meet and confer regarding the disputed discovery responses, to no
avail. (Declaration of Samuel Nielson ISO Mot. ¶¶ 5-11, Exhs. 3-7.) Defense
counsel states in opposition that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good
faith, arguing that Plaintiff’s June 20, 2022 email requesting a stipulation to
file concise outlines in lieu of separate statements, shortly after an email
from defense counsel that defense counsel “needed more time to evaluate the
merits” of the issues raised in the initial meet-and-confer email, evidences a
lack of good faith by Plaintiff. (Declaration of Sergio Ponce ISO Opp. Exhs.
D-E.) Defendant does not respond to Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the
refusal to confer over telephone. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has
made a reasonable and good-faith attempt to resolve the issues presented
informally.
Timeliness
A
motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the
service of the verified response, or any supplemental response, or on or before
any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party
have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c),
2031.310(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) Otherwise, the propounding party waives any
right to compel further responses. (Id.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and
jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.
App. 4th 1403, 1410.)
Here,
the responses were served on Plaintiff on June 7, 2022. (Nielson Decl. ¶ 4,
Exh. 2.) The instant motion was served and filed on June 28, 2022. The motion
is therefore timely.
Analysis
Plaintiff
seeks to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) Nos.
15 through 24.
The
identified interrogatories seek the identity of Defendant’s CEOs, members of
the board of directors, COOs, CFOs, and corporate secretaries from 2015 through
the present, and to state the date that each identified person served in their
respective capacities. (See generally Plaintiff’s Separate Statement ISO Mot.)
Defendant
asserted the same set of objections to each interrogatory: that they are
overbroad as to scope and time, harassing, violate the privacy rights of
Defendant or third parties, and are irrelevant.
1.
Relevance
Defendant objects to all of the
disputed interrogatories on the ground that they are irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The “relevance to the
subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence” standards are applied liberally. Any doubt is
generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Perry) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785,
790 fns. 7-8.)
Plaintiff contends that the
information sought—the identity of corporate board members and officers—is
relevant because Plaintiff’s theory of the case is that Defendant was a joint
employer of Plaintiff. Multiple corporations are constructively held to be a
single employer when there is (1) common ownership or financial control, (2) common
management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) an
interrelation of operations of the corporations. (Laird v. Capital
Cities/ABC, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 727, 737-38.)
In opposition, Defendant asserts
without support that the information sought is not relevant. Defendant’s
conclusory assertions are not well-taken. Plaintiff has articulated a legal
theory that provides a basis for pursuit of the information sought. Applying
the liberal standard for relevance in the context of discovery, the Court finds
that the information sought is relevant.
2.
Privacy
Defendant also argues that the
information sought violates the privacy rights of its corporate officers and
board members.
California Constitution, article I,
section 1, provides, “All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are
enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” In Hill
v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, the Supreme Court
laid out the standards to be used in assessing whether particular conduct
should be considered a violation of an individual’s privacy rights. Under Hill,
“[t]he party claiming a violation of the constitutional right of privacy
established in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution must
establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable
expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) a serious invasion of
the privacy interest.” (International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL–CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th
319, 338, citing and summarizing Hill,
supra, at pp. 39–40.)
These three Hill elements are simply the threshold factors that screen out
contentions that do not involve a significant intrusion on a privacy
interest. (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 992,
999). Proof of these elements does “not
eliminate the necessity for weighing and balancing the justification for the
conduct in question against the intrusion on privacy resulting from the conduct
in any case that raises a genuine, nontrivial invasion of a protected privacy
interest.” (Id.)
The nature of the balancing test
shifts depending on the character of the Hill
elements. As the Supreme Court
explained in Hill,
The particular context, i.e., the
specific kind of privacy interest involved and the nature and seriousness of
the invasion and any countervailing interests, remains the critical factor in
the analysis. Where the case involves an
obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy, e.g., freedom
from involuntary sterilization or the freedom to pursue consensual familial
relationships, a “compelling interest” must be present to overcome the vital
privacy interest. If, in contrast, the
privacy interest is less central, or in bona fide dispute, general balancing
tests are employed.
(Ibid. at p. 34; see also American Academy of Pediatrics v.
Lungren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307, 329-330 (recognizing that “general
balancing test” was applied in Hill while
“compelling interest test” is used when “a challenged action or regulation
directly invades ‘an interest fundamental to personal autonomy’”). Even where
the countervailing interests are found to outweigh the kind of privacy invasion
at issue, the individual asserting his or her privacy rights may “undertake the
burden of demonstrating the availability and use of protective measures, safeguards,
and alternatives to the defendant’s conduct that would minimize the intrusion
on privacy interests.” (Hill, supra, at p. 38).
Defendant’s officers and directors
“unquestionably have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their addresses and
telephone numbers.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th
1242, 1252.) However, although the
contact information is “personal,” it is “not particularly sensitive, as it is
merely contact information, not medical or financial details, political affiliations,
sexual relationships, or personnel information.” (Puerto, supra, at p. 1253
[citations omitted].) Further, the names
and contact information of pertinent witnesses is rarely barred in the context
of relevant discovery efforts. (Id.,
at p. 1254.) Thus, while the Court
concludes that Defendant’s officers and directors have a legitimate privacy
interest, the disclosure sought would not constitute a serious invasion of that
interest.
In the absence of a serious
invasion of a legitimate privacy interest, the Court need not balance that
exposure against any opposing interests. The exercise of balancing those
interests, however, confirms the Court’s conclusion that the privacy objection
to these discovery requests must be overruled. In addition to the relevance of
the information to the issues, preventing disclosure of this information would
also interfere with the “general public interest in . . . facilitating the
ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings . . . and in
obtaining just results in litigation.” (Puerto,
supra, at p. 1256 [citations and internal quotation marks
omitted].) This is particularly true
where discovery seeks the names and contact information of witnesses who are
available to one party but not to the other.
(Ibid.; Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169
Cal.App.4th 958, 969-970.) The Court therefore finds that privacy is not a
valid basis to deny the motion to compel further responses.
3.
Vagueness
Defendant objects to
Interrogatories Nos. 23 and 24 on the grounds that “secretary” is vague and
ambiguous. Defendant does not attempt to support these objections, and has
therefore failed to justify them.
4.
Boilerplate Objections: Overbroad and Harassing
Defendant asserts that all of the
interrogatories are overbroad and harassing. Defendant offers no facts or
evidence to support these objections, and has therefore failed to justify them.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the
amount of $2,617.50 for attorney’s fees and costs, accounting for 50 percent of
4.5 hours of attorney time to prepare this motion and the other motion to
compel further responses, addressed below, at $600/hour, 50 percent of 1.4
hours of paralegal time preparing moving papers at $125/hour, and 50 percent of
7.4 hours of legal assistant time preparing the separate statements and other
papers at $100/hour.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose
monetary sanctions on any attorney engaging in the misuse of the discovery
process by requiring that attorney to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by
anyone as a result of that conduct. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d)
requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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.
Here, Defendant Cast Parts has engaged in misuse of the discovery
process. Defendant raised boilerplate objections which were not substantially
justified. Defendant Cast Parts has unsuccessfully opposed this motion to
compel further responses. Sanctions are therefore warranted in the amount
requested.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Further Responses from Defendant Cast Parts, Inc. to Special
Interrogatories (Set Three) Nos. 15 through 24 is GRANTED. Defendant is to
provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to Plaintiff
within 30 days of the date of this order.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in
the amount of $2,617.50 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and
severally, is GRANTED.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) From Defendant Consolidated
Precision Products Corp.
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 8
through 17 and Form Interrogatory – General Nos. 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, and 12.6 from
Defendant Consolidated Precision Products Corp.
Two Motions in One
Multiple
motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§
70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion,
application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil
& Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter
Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests
ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)
Here, Plaintiff improperly combined
two motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set
One) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two) into one filing. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees within 10 days
of the date of this order to have the additional motion heard. The Court’s
ruling on the additional motion is conditioned upon Plaintiff’s payment of
these filing fees.
Meet and Confer
For the foregoing reasons stated in
connection with the Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories from Defendant
Cast Parts, the Court finds that Plaintiff made a reasonable and good-faith
effort to meet and confer to informally resolve this dispute.
//
//
Timeliness
Defendant Consolidated Precision
Products’ responses to the interrogatories were served on June 7, 2022.
(Declaration of Samuel Nielson ISO Mot. ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) The instant motion was
filed on June 28, 2022. The motion is therefore timely.
Special
Interrogatories (Set Two)
Plaintiff moves to compel further
responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 8 through 17. These
interrogatories seek the same information from Defendant Consolidated Precision
Products as the interrogatories to Defendant Cast Parts in the motion discussed
above. Defendant asserts the same objections to the interrogatories.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons stated above in connection with the
other motion to compel further responses, the Court finds that Defendant’s
objections are unfounded and that further responses must be provided.
Form
Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff also moves to compel
further responses to Form Interrogatory – General Nos. 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, and 12.6.
Form Interrogatory No. 3.7 asks
whether, within the past five years, any public entity has registered or
licensed the respondent’s business, and for each license or registration, to
identify the license or registration, state the name of the public entity, and
state the dates of issuance and expiration. (Nielson Decl. Exh. 2)
Defendant CPP objected to this
interrogatory as improperly propounded because it did not employ Plaintiff, and
therefore unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing, because it is
overbroad, and seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (Nielson Decl. Exh. 4.)
Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 seeks any
insurance at the time of the incident for the damages, claims, or actions that
arose out of the incident, and to identify for each policy the type of
coverage, contact information of the insurance company and insured, the policy
number, coverage limits, existence of any reservation of rights, and contact
information of the custodian. (Id.) “Incident” is defined to mean
“Plaintiff’s complaints to Defendant’s representatives concerning conduct by
Sandra Calderon and/or Freddy Jimenez towards Plaintiff, including Plaintiff’s
complaints in February 2020 and the resulting investigation by Defendant.” (Nielson
Decl. Exh. 2.)
Defendant CPP objected to this
interrogatory as improperly propounded because it did not employ Plaintiff, and
therefore unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing, because it is
overbroad, and seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant also objected that this
interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the term incident, and duplicative
of Form Interrogatories -Employment Law, and is therefore unduly burdensome,
oppressive, and harassing. Defendant also responded that the question is not
applicable because Defendant did not employ Plaintiff, and referred to Form
Interrogatory – Employment Law No. 214.1. (Nielson Decl. Exh. 4.)
Form Interrogatory No. 4.2 asks
whether the respondent is self-insured under any statute for the damages,
claims, or actions that have arisen out of the incident, and, if so, to
identify the statute. (Nielson Decl Exh. 2.)
Defendant CPP objected to this interrogatory as improperly propounded
because it did not employ Plaintiff, and therefore unduly burdensome,
oppressive, and harassing, because it is overbroad, and seeks information which
is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Defendant also objected that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to
the term incident, and duplicative of Form Interrogatories -Employment Law, and
is therefore unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Defendant also
responded that the question is not applicable because Defendant did not employ
Plaintiff. (Nielson Decl. Exh. 4.)
Form Interrogatory No. 12.6 asks
whether any report was made by any person concerning the incident, and seeks
the name, title, ID number, and employer of the person making the report, the
date and type of the report made, the contact information of the person for
whom the report was made, and the contact information of each person with a
copy of the report. (Id.)
Defendant CPP objected to this interrogatory as improperly propounded
because it did not employ Plaintiff, and therefore unduly burdensome,
oppressive, and harassing, because it is overbroad, and seeks information which
is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Defendant also objected that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to
the term incident, and duplicative of Form Interrogatories -Employment Law, and
is therefore unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. Defendant, however,
also responded “Not to Defendant’s knowledge, Defendant did not employ
Plaintiff.” (Nielson Decl. Exh. 4.)
1. Full and Complete Responses
Defendant CPP contends that it provided full and complete responses to
Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 4.2, and 12.6. Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.060 requires responses to interrogatories to be “full
and complete in and of itself.” Defendant’s references to other
interrogatories, the responses to which could easily have been duplicated here
rather than incorporated by reference, are not code-compliant in this respect.
Furthermore, with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 4.2, a response of
“not applicable” is not responsive to the information sought. The question
presented is whether, assuming Plaintiff’s theory of liability is correct,
Defendant has insurance for the type of liability at issue, and seeks
information related to that insurance. A response of “not applicable” is
evasive.
With respect to Interrogatory No. 12.6, however, a statement of “not to
Defendant’s knowledge” is a full and complete response regardless of the
validity of Defendant’s objections. The Court therefore finds that further
responses should not be compelled in connection with Form Interrogatory No.
12.6.
2. Relevance
Defendant CPP asserts the same relevance objections in connection with
the form interrogatories as in the special interrogatories. Accordingly, for
the reasons stated above, the Court finds this objection is without merit.
3. Boilerplate Objections: Overbroad, Unduly
Burdensome, Harassing, Vague and Ambiguous
Defendant CPP also asserts numerous boilerplate objections: that the
interrogatories are overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vague and
ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the definition of incident. Defendant
offers no facts or evidence to support these objections, and has therefore
failed to justify them.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary
sanctions in the amount of $2,617.50 for attorney’s fees and costs, accounting
for 50 percent of 4.5 hours of attorney time to prepare this motion and the
other motion to compel further responses, addressed above, at $600/hour, 50
percent of 1.4 hours of paralegal time preparing moving papers at $125/hour,
and 50 percent of 7.4 hours of legal assistant time preparing the separate
statements and other papers at $100/hour.
The Court finds that Defendant CPP’s
overruled objections and evasive answers were not substantially justified and,
thus, warrant discovery sanctions. Here,
where Plaintiff has only partially prevailed on the Motion to Compel Further
Responses, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,500 to compensate
Plaintiff for a portion of the time expended on seeking Defendant CPP’s compliance
with discovery.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s
request for Sanctions against Defendant CPP and Defendant’s counsel, jointly
and severally, is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,500.
Motion to Compel
Production of Documents in Accordance with Statement of Compliance
Plaintiff
moves to compel production of documents from Defendant Robert Benson in
accordance with his statement of compliance with Requests for Production Nos. 9
through 17.
Analysis
A motion to compel compliance
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.320 does not have a 45-day
time limit; nor does it contain a meet and confer requirement or a good cause
requirement. This type of motion is only proper where the responding party
represented in its response that it would comply with the request for
production and failed to do so. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a).) A proper
response to a request for production is “[a] statement that the party will
comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling” by the date set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section
2031.030(c)(2) (within a reasonable time, at least 30 days after service of the
demand).
Each of the requests for production
sought text messages on Defendant’s personal phone within a specific date range
between Defendant and specific named individuals or in reference to specific
subjects. (Declaration of Samuel Nielson ISO Mot. Exh. 1. pp. 3-4.) In
response, Defendant asserted numerous objections but also stated that, as to
each request, he would produce all non-privileged responsive documents within
his possession, custody, or control. (Nielson Decl. Exh. 2.) Plaintiff contends
that Defendant has not produced any responsive documents. (Nielson Decl. ¶ 5.)
In opposition, Defendant contends
that he produced all responsive documents in his discovery response, and that
defense counsel identified all responsive documents by bates stamp.
(Declaration of Sergio Ponce ISO Opp. ¶¶ 4-6, Exhs. C-E.)
In reply, Plaintiff advances his belief
that Defendant improperly withheld text messages between Defendant and Plant
Manager Matt Wuescher, as requested in RFP No. 12. (Nielson Decl. Exh. 2.) Plaintiff
contends that, in light of dozens of pages between Defendant and other
individuals, the complete absence of any text messages to Matt Weuscher,
allegedly the “number two person in the factory” is strongly indicative of
withheld documents. (See Ponce Decl. Exh. D. pp. 28-51; Nielson Decl ISO Reply
Exh. 1.) Plaintiff also points to screenshots of text messages involving Wuescher
contained within text messages that were provided to Plaintiff, as the original
conversations from which those screenshots originate were not found. (Ponce
Decl. Exh. D.)
Plaintiff also argues that the
responses are incomplete because many of the text messages reference documents
or images that were uploaded and discussed, but not downloaded in the provided
copies of those messages. (See Ponce Decl. Exh. D.) Finally, Plaintiff argues
that Defendant’s contention that responses were provided is a red herring
because the responsive documents were provided by Defendant Cast Parts, not
Benson. (Nielson Reply Decl. Exh. 4.) Plaintiff contends that the email
identifying responsive documents was followed by an email with Cast Parts’
amended responses that specifically referenced the documents produced. (Id.)
The Court finds, based on the
evidence presented, that Defendant did not produce all responsive documents in
his possession, custody, or control.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary
sanctions in connection with the motion to compel production in compliance.
However, Plaintiff failed to state the amount of monetary sanctions in the
notice of motion. The Court therefore declines to award monetary sanctions in
connection with this motion.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents pursuant to a statement of
compliance is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Cast Parts with
respect to Special Interrogatories (Set Three) Nos. 15 through 24 is GRANTED.
Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections
within 30 days of the date of this order.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions from Defendant Cast Parts and its counsel, jointly and
severally, is GRANTED in the amount of $2,617.50.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant CPP with respect to Special
Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 8 through 17 is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide
verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the
date of this order.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant CPP with respect to Form
Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 3.7,
4.1, and 4.2, and DENIED as to Interrogatory 12.6. This order is conditioned on
Plaintiff paying the $60 filing fee for an additional motion. Defendant is to provide verified,
code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this
order.
Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions against
Defendant CPP and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the
reduced amount of $1,500.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Production Pursuant to Statement of Compliance from Defendant
Benson is GRANTED.
Defendant is to produce the responsive documents within 30 days of the date of
this order.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions from Defendant Benson and his counsel is DENIED.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2022 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.