Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV15028, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15028    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 5, 2024              TRIAL DATE: January 21, 2025

CASE:                         Lauren Redmond v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV15028           

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Lauren Redmond

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on June 28, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed and terminated based on her gender and a perceived disability.

Defendant moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objections, excluding those revealing medical information or records, within 30 days of this order.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            This order is conditioned on Defendant paying $60 in filing fees within 5 days of this ruling.

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, Defendant seeks in one motion to compel further responses to requests for production and special interrogatories. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

            The Court therefore conditions its ruling on this motion on the payment of an additional $60 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

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.)

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.

Timeliness

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production or 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); 2031.310(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Defendant served Requests for Production (Set One) on Plaintiff on July 13, 2023, and Special Interrogatories on August 14, 2023. (Declaration of Eric May ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3-5, Exhs. 1-2.) Plaintiff served objection-only responses on September 18, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9, Exhs. 5-6.) Following an Informal Discovery Conference and multiple email exchanges, Plaintiff’s counsel categorically stated in writing that Defendant’s time to bring this motion has been extended indefinitely. (May Decl. Exh. 10 p.5.) Although this statement does not contain a “specific later date,” Plaintiff does not challenge the timeliness of the motion and expressly states an intention to supplement her responses. (See Declaration of Michael Freiman ISO Opp. ¶ 11.) The Court therefore finds that the motion is 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, 2030.300(b)(2); 2031.310(b)(2).)

The Declaration of Defendant’s counsel in support of the motion sets forth the extensive history of Defendant’s attempts to informally resolve the dispute concerning Plaintiff’s responses to these discovery requests. (See generally May Decl.) The Court therefore finds that Defendant has satisfied its statutory meet and confer obligations.

Analysis

            Defendant moves to compel further responses to requests for production and to special interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff.

Defendant served requests for Production on July 13, 2023 and Special Interrogatories on August 14, 2023. (May Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, Exhs. 1-2.) Plaintiff served objection-only responses on September 18, 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9, Exhs. 5-6.) The parties came before the Court for an Informal Discovery Conference on November 22, 2023 and thereupon stipulated to Plaintiff providing substantive responses by December 18, 2023 to all discovery other than those revealing medical information or records. (May Decl. Exh. 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that no supplemental responses have been provided, and states Plaintiff suffered a medical emergency in December 2023. (Freiman Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel unequivocally states that Plaintiff intends to respond in compliance with the Court’s November 22 order. (Id. ¶ 11.) Thus, Plaintiff has conceded the merits of the motion, and Defendants are entitled to an order compelling further responses.

Sanctions

            Defendant also requests monetary or terminating 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 sections 2030.300(d) and 2030.310(h) require 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.

A party engaging in this conduct may be subject to nonmonetary sanctions including terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).)  “[T]rial courts should select sanctions tailored to the harm caused by the misuse of the discovery process and should not exceed what is required to protect the party harmed by the misuse of the discovery process.” (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191, disapproved of on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493.) Sanctions are generally imposed using an incremental approach. (Id.) Generally, the appropriate sanctions when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to provide evidence to the opposing party as required by the discovery rules is preclusion of that evidence from the trial. (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, disapproved of on other grounds by Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204.)

In considering a motion for terminating sanctions, the Court is to attempt to “tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-1619.) 

[T]he question before this court is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. [Citation.] Moreover, imposition of a lesser sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling tactics. [Citation.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse.

(Id. at 1620.)  Moreover, in deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

            Here, the record does not suggest that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders was willful, and, moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions is appropriate to the injury Defendant has suffered from the delay in production of responsive documents at this time. Further still, the Court is not inclined to award sanctions, monetary or otherwise, where the moving party has improperly sought to compel responses to multiple sets of discovery in a single motion.  In addition, given Plaintiff’s explanation that her medical emergency interfered with her ability to provide supplemental responses, it would be unjust to impose monetary sanctions on her.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses without objections, excluding those revealing medical information or records, within 30 days of this order.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            This order is conditioned on Defendant paying $60 in filing fees within 5 days of this ruling.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 5, 2024                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.