Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV27310, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV27310 Hearing Date: January 6, 2025 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: January 6, 2025 TRIAL
DATE: NOT SET
CASE: Alondra Diaz v. USC Arcadia Hospital
CASE NO.: 23STCV27310 
(1)
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – EMPLOYMENT; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
(2)
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Alondra Diaz
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant USC
Arcadia Hospital
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination action that
was filed on November 7, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated her
from her employment as a Certified Nurse Assistant for taking medical leave following
the birth of her child.
Plaintiff moves to compel further
responses to form interrogatories and requests for admissions propounded to
Defendant, and for sanctions.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment is GRANTED. Defendant is
ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without
objections within 30 days of this order.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Admissions is DENIED as untimely.
//
DISCUSSION:
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories – Employment
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment
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.)
Plaintiff
served her Form Interrogatories – Employment Law on Defendant on March 11,
2024. (Declaration of Eric Y. Hahn ISO Mot. ¶ 2.) Defendant’s original
responses were received on October 15, 2024, and the amended responses with
verifications were received on October 18, 2024. (Id.¶ 5.) Although the
moving papers do not specify how the responses were served, Defendant’s
opposition freely concedes that the responses, both original and amended, were
served via email. (See Declaration of Todd Croutch ISO Opp. Exh. D.) Thus,
accounting for two additional court days for electronic service (see Code Civ.
Proc. § 1010.6), the deadline to bring this motion was Wednesday, December 4,
2024. This motion was served and filed on that date and therefore is timely.
Meet and
Confer
A party making a
motion to compel further responses must 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, 2030.310(b).)
The
Declaration filed by Plaintiff’s counsel accompanying the motion states that
counsel for Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel via
email and telephone on December 3 and December 4, 2024, to informally resolve
the dispute. (Hahn Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that, because the
parties were not able to reach an agreement regarding waiver of objections with
the looming filing deadline, the parties could not informally resolve this
dispute. (Id.) Plaintiff has satisfied her statutory meet-and-confer
obligations.
Analysis
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories propounded to
Defendant. Plaintiff served interrogatories on March 11, 2024. (Hahn Decl. ¶ 2;
Exh. A.) Consequently, Defendant’s deadline to respond was April 12, 2024. (Id.
¶ 3.) Although Defendant requested that Plaintiff stipulate to relief from the
consequential waiver of objections (see Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a),) counsel
for Plaintiff refused. (Hahn Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendant thereafter served
initial responses on October 15, 2024, and amended responses on October 18,
2024. (Hahn Decl. ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff
contends that Defendant’s responses to the interrogatories are inadequate
because each response, as evidenced in the Separate Statement, asserts invalid
objections before providing substantive responses. (E.g., Separate Statement p.
2:7-19.) Plaintiff also contends that the responses are inadequate and evasive
but does not explain how so beyond the bare assertion that certain responses
are “non-responsive to the subparts of the interrogatory.” (E.g., Separate
Statement p.3:4.)
Defendant
admits that it asserted objections to each interrogatory but contends that it
should be permitted to assert those objections under Code of Civil Procedure
section 473(b) and section 2030.290 because the failure to timely respond to
the interrogatories was the result of an inadvertent oversight by its counsel. These
contentions are immaterial in the context of this motion. Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.290 expressly states that a party who fails to timely
respond to an interrogatory waives “any objection to the interrogatories,
including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Although a party may be relieved from waiver of
objections upon a determination that the party has served substantially
code-compliant responses and that the failure to do so timely was the result of
mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, such relief may only be granted “on
motion.” (Id.) No such motion has been made, nor is one currently
pending before the Court. Defendant’s objections are therefore improper and
invalid, and Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a further response.
Sanctions
Plaintiff
requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally.
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
against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(d).) 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.)
Here,
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of
$2,035, representing $1,975 in attorney’s fees and $60 in costs. However,
Plaintiff does not provide any explanation of how the attorney’s fees claimed
were actually incurred, as the supporting Declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel
merely describes the total time incurred and anticipated for four pending
discovery motions in aggregate. Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate the
reasonable expenses which have been incurred. For that reason, the Court
declines to award sanctions.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is DENIED.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for
Admissions
Plaintiff
moves to compel further responses to requests for admissions propounded to
Defendant.
Legal Standard
Code of
Civil Procedure section 2033.290(a) provides that “[o]n receipt of a response
to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an
order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of
the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or
incomplete; (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too
general.” (Code Civ. Proc § 2033.290(a).)
The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure
to fully answer the requests. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
Timing
A motion to
compel further responses to requests for admission 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. §
2033.290(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton
v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Plaintiff
served her Requests for Admissions on Defendant on March 11, 2024. (Declaration
of Eric Y. Hahn ISO Mot. ¶ 2.) Defendant’s responses were served on October 11,
2024. (Id.¶ 5.) Although the moving papers do not specify the manner of
service of the responses, Defendant’s opposition freely concedes that the
responses were served via email. (See Declaration of Todd Croutch ISO Opp. Exh.
D.) Thus, accounting for two additional court days for electronic service (see
Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6), the deadline to bring this motion was Wednesday, November
27, 2024. This motion was served and filed on December 4, 2024, after the
deadline had passed. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely, and the Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider it.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions is
DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment is
GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without
objections within 30 days of this order.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Admissions is DENIED as untimely.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6,
2025 ___________________________________
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.