Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV11413, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11413    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On
April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Oscar Valle filed this action against Defendants Santa
Clarita Studios Corp., Santa Clarita Studios Inc., and Santa Clarita Studios.  Plaintiff later dismissed Santa Clarita Studios
Inc. and Santa Clarita Studios.

On
October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Santa Clarita Studios Corp.’s
written responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.  On November 30, 2022, Santa Clarita Studios
Corp. filed a late reply.

When
a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make
an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting,
Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses
waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection
of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 
Sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification
or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. 
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff
served discovery on Santa Clarita Studios Corp. on June 24, 2022.  Santa Clarita Studios Corp. did not timely serve
responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. 
However, defense counsel explains that discovery was served before he
was retained, and no one informed him that discovery was served.  (Cohon Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)  Each set of special interrogatories included
definitions with long subparts, such as requiring five to ten different pieces
of information each time the defendant was asked to “identify.”  (Chon Decl. ¶ 11.)  Other interrogatories required preparation of
spreadsheets of eight years of employee information, and some asked for more
than twenty years of information.  (Cohon
Decl. ¶ 11.)  Defense counsel apologized
to Plaintiff’s counsel for the delay, and on October 20, 2022, he requested an
extension of 30 days.  (Cohon Decl. ¶¶
16-17.)  Plaintiff’s counsel granted
seven days.  (Cohon Decl. ¶ 18.)  Santa Clarita Studios Corp. served detailed,
verified responses on November 28, 2022. 
(Cohon Decl. ¶ 21.)

Because
Santa Clarita Studios Corp. has now provided compliant responses and reasonably
explains its delay, the motion, including the request for sanctions, is DENIED.

Moving
party to give notice.

Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org
indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending
to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with
Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical
or N95 or KN95 mask.

        
Dated this 6th day of December 2022