Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 22STCV11413 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Oscar Valle filed this action against Defendants Santa Clarita Studios Corp. (“Defendant”), 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 (1) a motion to compel written responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One; (2) a motion to compel written responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One; (3) a motion to compel production for Document Requests, Set One; (4) a motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One admitted; and (5) a motion to compel written responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

At the December 1, 2022 hearing on the first four motions and the December 6, 2022 hearing on the fifth motion, the Court continued the hearings.

Plaintiff’s requests to strike Defendant’s untimely oppositions are denied. The Court continued the hearings to allow consideration of Defendant’s late oppositions and Plaintiff’s replies.

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).)

When a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff served discovery on Defendant on June 24, 2022. Defendant did not timely serve responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. Defense counsel explains that discovery was served before he was retained, and no one informed him that discovery was served. (Cohon Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.) Defendant’s Vice President had attempted to email the discovery requests to defense counsel on June 28, 2022, “but the combined attachments were apparently too large to go through.” (Deutsch Decl. ¶ 4.)

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 offered seven days. (Cohon Decl. ¶ 18.) According to Defendant, it served “detailed, verified responses” on November 28, 2022. (Cohon Decl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff argues that the late responses are deficient.

In reply, Plaintiff identifies several deficiencies with Defendant’s responses.

Nos. 200.1(b), 200.3(b), 201.1(b), 201.1(c), 215.1(a), and 217.1(c) do not include the address and telephone number of the witnesses.

No. 217.1(d) does not specifically identify the documents and the person who has the documents.

No. 204.2 states that this request is “not properly directed to defendant,” but Defendant can answer it based on its knowledge.

Nos. 204.3, 204.4, 204.5, 204.6, and 204.7 involve information relating to the employee’s disability. Defendant responded, “Plaintiff Oscar Valle did not have a disability.” This does not fully answer the interrogatories, which ask for information about communications about, knowledge of, and accommodations for Plaintiff’s disability. If Defendant did not have any communications about or knowledge of Plaintiff’s disability, it should state so. If Defendant denies that Plaintiff needed an accommodation, it should state so.

Plaintiff also notes that No. 200.4(b) does not include the date of the documents. That request asks Defendant to “state the manner in which the DOCUMENT was communicated to employee.” Defendant responded that the documents were “[p]ersonally handed to employees.” That fully responds to the request.

The motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses (without objections) to Form Rog Nos. 200.1(b), 200.3(b), 201.1(b), 201.1(c), 201.5, 204.2, 204.3, 204.4, 204.5, 204.6, 204.7, 215.1(a), 217.1(c), 217.1(d) within 21 days.

No. 12.2 does not include the address and telephone number of the witnesses and the dates of interviews.

No. 14.1 does not identify the person involved and specifically what was violated.

The motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses (without objections) to Form Rog Nos. 12.2 and 14.1 within 21 days.

Defendant’s responses state that it will comply with the requests by producing all documents that are “not privileged, confidential, trade secret, or otherwise subject to the Defendant’s right of privacy, a third party right of privacy and/or which seek to obtain information about Defendant’s financial condition without first seeking an order pursuant to Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295,” and all documents “[e]xcept for documents which are protected by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.” (Cohon Decl., Ex. D.) In other responses, Defendant states that “[a]fter diligent search and reasonable inquiry, responding party is unable to comply with this request because no such documents have ever existed.”

In reply, Plaintiff contends that several responses are not substantially compliant because they are non-responsive and argue that the requests are argumentative.

RFA Nos. 18-19 ask Defendant to admit that it failed to take action to cease known violations of FEHA, including preventing discrimination and retaliation. Defendant stated that these RFAs “assume[] a predicate fact to be true which was, in fact, not true,” and it “denies that Plaintiff was subjected to any known violations of FEHA, and therefore the remaining statements in [these] request[s] cannot be admitted or denied.” This fully responds to the requests.

RFA No. 23 asks Defendant to “Admit that providing ACCOMMODATION to PLAINTIFF would not have imposed an undue hardship on YOU.” RFA No. 24 asks Defendant to “Admit that PLAINTIFF’s request for ACCOMMODATION of a DISABILITY was a substantial motivating reason for YOUR subjecting of PLAINTIFF to one or more ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS during the EMPLOYMENT PERIOD.” Defendant stated that these RFAs “assume[] a predicate fact to be true which was, in fact, not true,” and it “denies that Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation for a recognized disability, and therefore the remaining statements in [these] request[s] cannot be admitted or denied.” This fully responds to the requests.

RFA No. 26 asked Defendant to “Admit that, during the EMPLOYMENT PERIOD, YOU never investigated any complaints by PLAINTIFF about any aspect of PLAINTIFF’s EMPLOYMENT.” RFA No. 27 asks Defendant to admit that the fact that Plaintiff made whistleblower complaints “was a substantial motivating reason for YOUR decision to take one or more ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS against PLAINTIFF.” Defendant stated that these RFAs “assume[] a predicate fact to be true which was, in fact, not true,” and it denied that Plaintiff had made any such complaints, “and therefore the remaining statements in [these] request[s] cannot be admitted or denied.” This fully responds to the requests.

RFA No. 31 asks Defendant to “Admit that in October of 2020 YOU authorized PLAINTIFF to take medical leave.” Defendant “admits that Plaintiff was on leave due to the mandatory quarantine period imposed by the guidelines of the Los Angeles County Health Department.” This is substantially compliant.

RFA No. 32 asks Defendant to “Admit that PLAINTIFF was on medical leave when PLAINTIFF’s EMPLOYMENT with YOU was ended.” Defendant responded, in part, that it “denies that Plaintiff was on any leave or quarantine when his employment with Santa Clarita Studios Corp. ended.” This is substantially compliant.

RFA No. 33 asks Defendant to “Admit that YOU discharged PLAINTIFF from PLAINTIFF’s EMPLOYMENT with YOU on the same date that PLAINTIFF returned from medical leave.” Defendant “admits that Plaintiff was on leave due to the mandatory quarantine period imposed by the guidelines of the Los Angeles County Health Department. Responding admits that Plaintiff was terminated after his quarantine period ended.” This is substantially compliant.

In reply, Plaintiff identifies several deficiencies with Defendant’s responses.

Nos. 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 29, 31 do not provide all the information required by the defined request to “IDENTIFY.”

Nos. 32 and 35 consist of only objections, which are waived by Defendant’s late response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

No. 34 is missing some of the requested information about job title, whether their employment ended voluntarily or involuntarily, and whether they are a current or former employee.

The motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses (without objections) to Special Rogs Nos. 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, within 21 days.

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even where the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Defendant’s dilatory behavior and service of responses a month after Plaintiff’s extension passed and only three days before the first hearing on the motions warrants sanctions.

Each of the first four motions include a request for sanctions of $2,060.00. For each motion, counsel billed 2 hours at $400/hour for drafting the motion, 2 hours at $400/hour for reviewing any opposition and preparing a reply brief, 1 hour at $400/hour for attending the hearing, and a $60 filing fee.

The fifth motion, regarding Special Interrogatories, requests sanctions of $1,660.00. Counsel billed 1 hour at $400/hour for drafting the motion, 2 hours at $400/hour for reviewing any opposition and preparing a reply brief, 1 hour at $400/hour for attending the hearing, and a $60 filing fee.

The motions contain similar procedural information and arguments. The motions will be heard together, and the hearings will not take a total of 5 hours. The Court concludes that a reasonable total sanction based on a reasonable amount of attorney fees and costs is $2,300.00 ($2,000 in attorney fees plus five filing fees at $60 each).

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,240.00 to Plaintiff within 21 days.

The motion to compel Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses (without objections) to Form Rog Nos. 200.1(b), 200.3(b), 201.1(b), 201.1(c), 201.5, 204.2, 204.3, 204.4, 204.5, 204.6, 204.7, 215.1(a), 217.1(c), 217.1(d) within 21 days.

The motion to compel Form Interrogatories – General, Set One is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses (without objections) to Form Rog Nos. 12.2 and 14.1 within 21 days.

The motion to compel Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses (without objections) to Special Rogs Nos. 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, within 21 days.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,300.00 to Plaintiff within 21 days.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court