Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 22STCV33248 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV33248, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33248 Hearing Date: May 8, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: May 8, 2023 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Joel Garcia v. Cal-West Express Co., Ltd.

CASE NO.: 22STCV33248

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

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

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Joel Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Cal-West Express Co., Ltd.

CASE HISTORY:

· 10/11/22: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a wage and hour action that was filed on October 11, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee and failed to pay him overtime and provide meal and rest breaks.

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 5 propounded to Defendant.

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:

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 second supplemental responses were served on March 29, 2023. (Declaration of Sam Sani ISO Mot. ¶ 7, Exh. G.) This motion was filed and served on April 10, 2023. This motion is therefore timely.

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 Sam Sani states only, with respect to these supplemental responses, that a meet and confer letter was sent to Defendant’s counsel on March 31, 2023. (Sani Decl. ¶ 8 Exh. H.) The remainder of Attorney Sani’s declaration only provides Defendant’s previous responses and Plaintiff’s previous meet and confer letters. (See generally Sani Decl.) No evidence is provided regarding Defendant’s response to the March 31 letter, or any additional efforts beyond a meet and confer letter to resolve the remaining disputes here. This is not remotely sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s meet and confer obligations. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the motion in the interest of an efficient resolution of this dispute.

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to a single special interrogatory within the first set of special interrogatories propounded to Defendant. Plaintiff served these interrogatories on Defendant on November 14, 2021. (Sani Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Special interrogatory No. 5 asks Defendant to identify by job title, name, address, and telephone number each person providing responses or responsive information to the Special Interrogatories. (Id.) Defendant’s second supplemental response provides the parties’ names and job titles, but not their addresses and phone numbers, instead stating that they can be contacted exclusively through Defendant’s counsel. (Id. Exh. G; see also Separate Statement.)

Plaintiff contends that this response is inadequate because it is not responsive to the interrogatory in that it fails to provide these witnesses’ phone numbers and addresses, and that Plaintiff is entitled to their contact information. The Court disagrees. The identified parties are employees of Defendant, and Defendant’s counsel has provided a point of contact for them in the form of Defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff cites no authority standing for the proposition that this response is inadequate in this context. Plaintiff’s demand that Defendant alternatively guarantee under oath that it will produce these individuals for deposition and trial via notice to Defendant in lieu of a subpoena is similarly made without reference to authority. Plaintiff has not shown that a further response is required on this basis.

Plaintiff also contends that the response is not code-compliant because the verification states that it is verifying “Responses to Supplemental Special Interrogatories,” rather than verifying “Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories.” The Court is not inclined to order further responses for this typographical error.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

Sanctions

Both parties seek sanctions against the other.

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.

As Defendant is the prevailing party, Defendant is entitled to seek sanctions. However, Defendant only requests sanctions against the Plaintiff, Joel Garcia, and not against Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court agrees with Defendant that this motion was unnecessary, and that Plaintiff’s meet and confer process was not adequate. The Court concludes, however, that it would be unjust to award sanctions against Plaintiff when the issues here appear to arise from the conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel, and not Plaintiff himself.

Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions on this motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to two requests for production propounded to Defendant in Plaintiff’s 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.)

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production 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.)

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Sam Sani states only, with respect to these supplemental responses, that a meet and confer letter was sent to Defendant’s counsel on March 31, 2023. (Sani Decl. ¶ 8 Exh. H.) The remainder of Attorney Sani’s declaration only provides Defendant’s previous responses and Plaintiff’s previous meet and confer letters. (See generally Sani Decl.) No evidence is provided pertaining to Defendant’s response to the March 31 letter, or any additional efforts beyond a meet and confer letter to resolve the remaining disputes here. This is not remotely sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s meet and confer obligations. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the motion in the interest of an efficient resolution of this dispute.

Good Cause

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 30 in his first set of requests for production propounded to Defendant. Plaintiff served these requests on Defendant on November 14, 2021. (Sani Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Request 17 seeks documents and writings related to Defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures regarding email, document, and file retention. (Separate Statement No. 17.) Request No. 30 seeks documents and writings related to Defendant’s expectations of Plaintiff’s job positions during the relevant time period. (Id. No. 30.)

Plaintiff contends that Request No. 17 is relevant because Defendant claims that several categories of documents are lost, destroyed, or not in Defendant’s possession, and thus Plaintiff is inquiring into the loss of these documents. (Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) As to Request No. 30, Plaintiff contends that the expectations of his job position are directly relevant to proving that he was misclassified. (Ramirez v. Yosemite Water, Inc. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 802.) Based on these assertions, Plaintiff has shown good cause for these requests.

Defendant’s Response

Defendant served three sets of responses to these interrogatories. Defendant initially responded to both requests by simply stating “Will comply by producing the entirety of Mr. Garcia’s employment file,” without specifying which documents were provided. (Sani Decl. Exh. B. Nos. 17, 30.)

Defendant’s first supplemental response to Request No. 17 raised numerous objections not made in the initial response. (Id. Exh. D. No. 17.) Defendant’s second supplemental response to Request No. 17 again raised objections, but this time construed the response as seeking Plaintiff’s compensation records, and specified the employee handbook by Bates Stamp number as the only responsive document. (Id. Exh. G. No. 17.)

Defendant’s first supplemental response to Request No. 30 simply stated that, after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant was unable to comply because the category of documents sought were no longer in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant. (Id. Exh. D. No. 30.) Defendant’s second supplemental response stated numerous objections and construed the request as seeking Plaintiff’s compensation records before again pointing to the entirety of Plaintiff’s employee file, which Defendant contends holds all responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. (Id. Exh. G. No. 30.)

Plaintiff argues that these responses are inadequate because they misconstrue the requests as referring only to Plaintiff’s compensation records. Plaintiff is correct. Defendant’s supplemental responses assert objections after having served initial responses that did not contain these objections. Even if the Court were to consider these untimely objections, Defendant makes absolutely no effort to justify these objections in opposition. Further, Defendant’s responses are evasive on their face. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses.

Plaintiff also asserts the same verification argument addressed in the first motion above. The Court likewise considers this argument to be without merit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Both parties seek sanctions against the other.

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 2031.310(j) 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, although Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the Court is not inclined to award sanctions in the face of such a deficient meet and confer process. Plaintiff failed to comply with his statutory meet and confer obligations in bringing this motion, and the Court believes it to be unjust to award sanctions in these circumstances.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 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.