Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV22562, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22562    Hearing Date: August 14, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     August 14, 2023                     TRIAL DATE: January 2, 2024

CASE:                         Victor Alvarado, et al., v. Bhanumati Bhakta, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV22562           

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, & FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Victor Alvarado and Olimpia Reyes

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 8/9/23

CASE HISTORY:

·         07/13/22: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for employment discrimination and wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants systematically failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages and terminated Plaintiffs for requesting disability accommodations and complaining about their wages.

Plaintiffs move to compel responses to discovery requests propounded to Defendants.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiffs paying $500 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Multiple Motions

            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, Plaintiffs have moved to compel responses to twenty-four sets of discovery, in the form of identical requests for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories propounded to each of the four Defendants from each of the two Plaintiffs, separately. To say that this motion is improper would be a gross understatement. That said, in the interest of efficiently resolving this discovery dispute, and to avoid needless repetition, the Court will address all twenty-four sets of discovery in a single ruling on a single motion, as presented by Plaintiffs. However, the Court will condition its ruling on Plaintiffs’ payment of $500 in filing fees, representing part of tthe $60 filing fee for each of the twenty-three other motions that should have been filed.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom an inspection demand or an interrogatory is directed fails to respond, a party making the request may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [requests for production].) A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of requests for production was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Plaintiffs served each of their twenty-four sets of discovery requests via mail on Defendants’ counsel on September 28, 2022. (Declaration of Kyle W. Thompson ISO Mot. ¶ 3.) To date, no responses have been received. (¶ 9.) Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an order compelling responses to the discovery requests.

Sanctions

            Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendants and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,925.

            Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

            Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2030.300(d); 2031.300 (c); 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Id.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

            Here, Plaintiffs request an award of $2,925, representing nine hours of attorney time incurred at a rate of $325 per hour in preparation of this motion. (Thompson Decl. ¶ 11.) Even if the Court were inclined to award sanctions on a motion that improperly combined twenty-four sets of discovery—and it is not—this fee request is unreasonably inflated on its face. The Court has the power to deny unreasonably inflated fee requests outright. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.) It should not have taken Plaintiffs’ counsel nine hours to prepare an unopposed motion to compel responses consisting of five substantive pages of argument, plus supporting exhibits and an eleven-paragraph declaration. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiffs paying $500 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

//

//

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2023                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.