Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 21STCV13235 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV13235, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13235 Hearing Date: November 21, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: November 21, 2022 TRIAL DATE: January 17, 2023

CASE: Tomas Cueva Ruelas v. Pueblo Restaurant, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV13235

(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: Plaintiff Tomas Cueva Ruelas

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Pueblo Restaurant, Inc.,

CASE HISTORY:

· 04/7/21: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff filed this action on April 7, 2021 alleging employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wage and hour violations.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories and requests for production, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses without objections to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 201.6 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objection within 20 days of the date of this order.

Defendant is also to produce the employee handbook in use during the period from two years before Plaintiff’s termination through the date of his termination of employment, pursuant to the Court’s August 23, 2022 Order, within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,920 in against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made within 30 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant Pueblo Restaurant, Inc., to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Specifically, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 and No. 201.6.

Legal Standard

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.)

Timing:

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff served the discovery requests at issue on Defendant. (Declaration of Arg. Markaryan ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant’s responses were received, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, on April 21, 2022. (Id. Exh. D.) The parties held an Informal Discovery Conference before the Court on August 23, 2022, and the Court ordered, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, that Defendant supplement its responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 4.1 and 201.6 by September 9, 2022 and extended the filing deadline for the instant motion to October 10, 2022. (August 23, 2022 Minute Order.)

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, Plaintiff served this motion electronically on Defendant on the October 10, 2022 deadline, even though Plaintiff did not file this motion until October 11. However, as section 2031.310 only concerns itself with noticing the motion, the Court finds that the motion was timely served.

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, 2031.300 (b)(1).)

The Declaration of Arg Markaryan states that the parties met and conferred extensively before filing this motion electronically and telephonically before the Informal Discovery conference. (Markaryan Decl. ¶¶ 3-13, Exhs. A-K.) Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant after the IDC via email once Defendant’s supplemental responses became overdue on September 9, 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15, Exhs. L-M.) No response was received. (Id at ¶ 16.) The Court finds, based on the foregoing, that Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory meet and confer requirements.

Analysis

On August 23, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties at an Informal Discovery Conference, the Court ordered that Defendant supplement its responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 4.1 and 201.6 by September 9, 2022 (August 23, 2022 Minute Order.) Defendant has not responded. (Markaryan Decl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further response to these interrogatories without objections.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,860. Plaintiff purportedly bases this request on 7 hours of attorney time at $200 per hour, plus an additional anticipated hour for a reply brief, another anticipated hour for the hearing, plus a $60 filing fee. (Id. ¶ 17.)

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, in refusing to provide supplemental responses pursuant to the Court’s August 23, 2022 order to do so, Defendant has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. The Court therefore will award sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,460, representing the fees actually incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses without objections to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 201.6 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,460 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made within 30 days of the date of this order.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to requests for production (set one).

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.)

Timing:

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff served the discovery requests at issue on Defendant. (Declaration of Arg. Markaryan ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant’s responses were received, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, on April 21, 2022. (Id. Exh. D.) The parties held an Informal Discovery Conference before the Court on August 23, 2022, and the Court ordered, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, that Defendant produce, by September 6, 2022 (although Plaintiff contends the due date was actually September 9), “the employee handbook in use during the period from two years before Plaintiff’s termination through the date of his termination of employment, as well as all documents it indicated would be produced to Plaintiff in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s request for documents.” (August 23, 2022 Minute Order.)

As with the previously discussed motion, Plaintiff served this motion electronically on Defendant on the October 10, 2022 deadline, even though Plaintiff did not file this motion until October 11. Because the motion was noticed timely, the Court finds that the motion was timely.

Meet and Confer

Analysis

On August 23, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties at an Informal Discovery Conference, the Court ordered that Defendant produce, by September 6, 2022 (although Plaintiff contends the due date was actually September 9), “the employee handbook in use during the period from two years before Plaintiff’s termination through the date of his termination of employment, as well as all documents it indicated would be produced to Plaintiff in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s request for documents.” (August 23, 2022 Minute Order.) Defendant has not responded. (Markaryan Decl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further response to these requests for production without objections.

Sanctions

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 2031.300(c) 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, in refusing to provide supplemental responses pursuant to the Court’s August 23, 2022 order to do so, has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. The Court therefore will award sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,460, representing the fees actually incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. Defendant is to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objection within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,460 in connection with this motion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses without objections to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 201.6 within 20 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,920 in against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 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.