Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV42819 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV42819, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42819 Hearing Date: September 30, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: September 30, 2022 TRIAL DATE: November 8, 2022

CASE: Silvia Lorena Juarez v. Village Auto Spa, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV42819

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1)(2) Plaintiff Silvia Lorena Juarez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) No response on eCourt as of 09/28/22

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a wage and hour action that was filed on November 9, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages she was owed, failed to provide meal and rest periods and overtime compensation, failed to timely pay off all benefits owed within the statutory period following Plaintiff’s resignation, and failed to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource HR.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource HR is ordered to provide complete, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource HR is ordered to provide complete, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $960 against Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource HR and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff within 10 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to her Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) propounded to Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource HR and requests sanctions.

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 also 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, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).

The record reveals that the parties’ counsel had a substantial back and forth concerning Defendant’s responses to the subject form interrogatories between July 8, 2021 and August 17, 2022. (Declaration of Eduardo Balderas ISO Mot. ¶¶ 6-12, Exhs. 5-9.) The meet and confer correspondence is sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s statutory meet and confer obligations.

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified 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). The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Here, Defendant’s responses were served on April 20, 2021. The statutory deadline to file a motion to compel further responses was June 7, 2021. (See Balderas Decl. ¶ 6.) However, the parties agreed in writing to multiple extensions of the time to file a motion to compel further responses, with the most recent agreement setting the motion cutoff date on September 1, 2022. (Balderas Decl. Exh. 7.) This motion was filed on August 31, 2022. The motion is therefore timely.

Analysis

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to Interrogatories 201.1, 201.4, 209.2, 211.1, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, and 215.2.

Form Interrogatory No. 201.1 asks whether the employee that is the subject of the action was terminated, and if so, demands the reasons for the termination, the contact information of each person who participated in the decision, the contact information of each person who provided any information relied upon in that decision, and any documents relied upon in that decision. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 1. p. 3.)

Form Interrogatory No. 201.4 asks whether the termination or any other adverse employment actions based on the employee’s job performance, and if so, to identify each adverse action, identify the specific job performance that played role in that action, identify any rules, guidelines, policies or procedures used to evaluate that employee’s performance, provide the contact information of any person responsible for evaluating the performance of the employee, provide the contact information of all persons with knowledge of the employee’s relevant performance, and describe all warnings given regarding the employee’s performance.(Id.)

Form Interrogatory No. 209.2 asks whether, aside from this action, any employee has, in the past decade, filed a civil action against the employer regarding their employment, and, if so, provide the contact information of each employee who filed the action, provide the identifying information of the relevant civil action, provide the contact information of any attorney representing the employer, and state whether the action is resolved or pending. (Id. p. 6.)

Form Interrogatory No. 211.1 asks the respondent to identify each type of benefit to which the employee would have been entitled from the date of the adverse employment action onward, had the action not occurred and the employee remained in the same position, including the amount the employer would have paid to provide the benefit and the value of the benefit to the employee. (Id. p. 7.)

Form Interrogatory No. 214.1 asks whether, at the time of the adverse employment action, the respondent had any insurance policy which might cover the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen, and for each policy state the kind of coverage, the contact information of the insurance company and the insured, the policy number and coverage limits, whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between the respondent and the insurance company, and the contact information of the custodian of the policy. (Id. p. 8.)

Form Interrogatory No. 214.2 asks whether the respondent is self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the adverse employment action, and, if so, to specify the statute. (Id.)

Form Interrogatory No. 215.1 asks whether the respondent or anyone on the respondent’s behalf has interviewed any individual concerning the adverse employment action, and, if so, to provide the contact information of the interviewer and interviewee and the date of the interview. (Id.)

Form Interrogatory No. 215.2 asks whether the respondent or anyone acting on the respondent’s behalf has obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the adverse employment action, and for each statement, provide the contact information of the individuals who gave the statement and who obtained the statement, the date the statement was obtained, and the contact information of each person who has the original statement or a copy. (Id.)

In response to each of these interrogatories, Defendant asserted the same series of boilerplate objections to each interrogatory to the extent that those objections were applicable. (See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Separate Statement pp. 2-3.) Defendant did not specify in its responses whether any of those objections were applicable to any of these responses. The Court therefore finds that Defendant has failed to justify any of its purported boilerplate objections.

Following the boilerplate objections, Defendant provided the same response to each interrogatory:

Defendant has made a reasonable inquiry and investigation to acquire the knowledge and/or information from all sources under the responding party’s control. Said inquiry and investigation has shown that Defendant was not Plaintiff’s employer. Therefore, Defendant has no substantive information to provide in response to this interrogatory. Defendant will provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory if and when it becomes aware, through this litigation, of any responsive and non-privileged information. Discovery is ongoing.

(E.g., Plaintiff’s Separate Statement p.3:6-11.) This response is evasive on its face. Whether Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer or not is irrelevant when the interrogatories posed are whether the respondent is in possession of requested information. Defendant is a named party in this lawsuit, and Plaintiff is entitled to seek responses to her form interrogatories from Defendant, employer or not. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

As Defendant has not responded to this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One.)

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,160 in connection with this motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 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. Failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery, evasive responses to discovery, and unmeritorious objections made without substantial justification are all misuses of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 22023.010(d)-(f).)

Here, as the prevailing party, Plaintiff seeks $2,160 in attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel justifies this request as accounting for 2 hours of attorney time at $300 per hour incurred, plus five anticipated hours of attorney time at the same rate and $60 in filing fees. (Balderas Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) The Court declines to award attorney’s fees based on hours anticipated to review an opposition and prepare a reply, when no opposition has been filed. The Court therefore will grant sanctions in the reduced amount of $960.00, accounting for the two hours of attorney time drafting the motion at $300 per hour, plus one hour for the hearing and the $60 filing fee.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $960 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days of the date of this order.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 19, 20, and 21 propounded to Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource and for sanctions.

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 – Employment (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set Two) into one filing. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees to have the additional motion heard within 10 days of the date of this order. The Court’s ruling on the additional motion is conditioned upon Plaintiff’s payment of these filing fees.

Legal Standards

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These facts must also be set forth in a separate statement filed by the moving party. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also 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, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)

For the reasons stated above in connection with the previous motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified 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. § 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

For the reasons stated above in connection with the previous motion, the Court finds that the motion is timely.

Good Cause

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 19, 20, and 21.

Request No. 19 seeks any and all notes, correspondence, files, documents, or handwritings relating to the respondent’s relationship with co-defendant Village Auto Spa, Inc. during the relevant time period. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement p. 2:8-9.) As the respondent and Village Auto Spa Inc. are co-defendants in this action, documents concerning their relationship is facially relevant to the action. Plaintiff has therefore shown good cause for this request.

Request No. 20 seeks the complete personnel file maintained for Plaintiff. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement p. 3:15-21.) As this is an individual wage and hour employment action, Plaintiff’s personnel file, including such documents as pay records, work records, and benefits, are facially relevant to this case. Plaintiff has therefore shown good cause for this request.

Request No. 21 seeks the complete contents of any other files the respondent maintained in Plaintiff’s name during the relevant time period. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement p. 5:5-6.) This request is also manifestly relevant when taken in the context of the previous two requests. Plaintiff has therefore shown good cause for this request.

Defendant’s Responses

As in the previous motion, Defendant asserts a series of boilerplate, nonspecific objections to the extent that they apply, without stating whether those objections are actually applicable. Defendant also objects on the grounds that the requests do not reasonably particularize each category of item, and the requests are vague or ambiguous. However, Defendant makes no effort to justify its objections in those responses, and, as Defendant has not responded to this motion, Defendant has therefore completely failed to justify these objections.

In response to Request No. 19, Defendant only states that “Defendant has never been Plaintiff’s employer, and as such, is an improperly named Defendant in this case.” Defendant produces the same responses to Requests Nos. 20 and 21, but also adds that, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, “Defendant is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request.”

These responses are not code compliant. Whether Defendant is a properly named party in this action or not is irrelevant with respect to Defendant’s discovery obligations. Furthermore, a statement that Defendant “is not in possession of any documents responsive” to the request is not sufficient: Defendant is obligated to also specify whether the inability to comply “is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control” of Defendant, and providing the name and address of “any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.) Defendant has not complied with its statutory obligations in responding to these requests. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,160 in connection with this motion.

Here, however, as Plaintiff has also sought sanctions in connection with the previous, simultaneously filed motion, and did not properly reserve a hearing for the second motion, the Court does not find sanctions to be appropriate in light of Plaintiff’s own errors. The Court therefore declines to award sanctions in connection with this motion.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED, on the condition that Plaintiff pay the addition $60 filing fee required for the additional motion.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions in connection with this motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED, conditioned on Plaintiff’s payment of the $60 filing fee for the additional motion.

Defendant Lightsource PEO, LLC, d/b/a Lightsource HR is ordered to provide complete, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $960 against defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff within 10 days of the date of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 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.