Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV13626, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13626    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC filed this action against Defendant Carlos A. Lainez for Violation of the Immigration Consultant Act.

On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff served its Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Admissions, Set One; and Form Interrogatories, Set One.

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel response to form interrogatories (RES ID: 816771765438), a motion to compel production of documents (RES ID: 308832973356), and a motion to deem request for admissions admitted (RES ID: 966862855266).  On July 25, 2022, the Court continued the hearings to October 6, 2022 and ordered the parties to first schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) pursuant to Department 48’s courtroom procedures.

On July 23, 2022, Defendant served responses to the discovery requests.

On August 26, 2022, the parties participated in an IDC.

On September 1, 2022, the Court reset the pending discovery motions from October 6, 2022 to November 23, 2022.

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a filed a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories (RES ID: 287284735092) and a motion to compel further production of documents (RES ID: 346251246954), noticing hearings on October 27, 2022.  No oppositions were filed.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Rescheduled Hearings Re Motions, indicating that all five discovery motions would be heard on October 27, 2022.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

The motions filed on July 6, 2022 indicate that Defendant did not timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  (July 6 Medvei Decl. ¶ 5.)

The motions filed on September 9, 2022 indicate that Defendant served responses to the discovery requests on July 24, 2022, after the first motions were filed.  (Sept. 9 Medvei Decl. ¶ 6.)  Accordingly, the motions to compel initial responses and to deem RFAs admitted are now moot.  Additionally, Plaintiff should have followed the Court’s procedures for scheduling an IDC before filing these motions.

The motions and requests for sanctions are DENIED.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff moves to compel a further response to Form Rog No. 17.1, which asks, “Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission?  If no, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the name, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

Defendant denied RFA Nos. 1-16.  Defendant then responded to Form Rog No. 17.1, “I have denied all requests for admissions as they are irrelevant since the complaint in this case is a vague, unclear and unspecific as it relates to Carlos Lainez and responses to these admissions clearly violates the defendant’s rights under the fifth amendment and is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination as each admission would require an admission to a misdemeanor offense as stated by the immigration consultant act.  The defendant has not violated any of the rules promulgated by the ICA.  This is a boiler plate request for admissions and a vague and overbroad as the complaint fails to specify any act or wrongdoing by the defendant.”

Defendant failed to timely serve initial responses, and his response is not substantially compliant.  He also has not shown that his failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, as he did not oppose the initial motion or this motion to compel further.  Accordingly, he has waived objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objection, within 10 days.

Plaintiff requests a sanction of $2,578.35, consisting of $2,500.00 in attorney fees (5 hours at $500/hour) and $78.35 in costs.  The Court declines to award fees for the anticipated 2 hours drafting a reply brief, as no opposition was filed.  The Court also declines to award fees for 2 hours for the hearing.  The Court finds that a reasonable total amount of time is 2 hours, totaling $1,000.00 in attorney fees.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.  The Court awards a sanction of $1,078.35 in attorney fees and costs, to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.  RFP No. 1 seeks “ALL written contracts between YOU and YOUR customers for immigration consultant services.”  RFP No. 2 seeks “ALL typewritten receipts provided by YOU to YOUR customers.”  RFP No. 4 seeks “ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRING TO YOUR advertisements.”  RFP No. 6 seeks “ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRING TO copies of documents provided to YOUR customers.”  RFP No. 7 seeks “ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRING TO YOUR customers, including, without limitation, copies of documents filed on behalf of YOUR customers, copies of case files, copies of case notes referring to YOUR customers by YOU, etc.,” permitting redaction or a protective order for any confidential information.

Defendant objected because the RFPs “call[] for information in which individuals, including non-parties, have an expectation or right of privacy or confidentiality provided by the California Constitution and common law privacy rights.”

Defendant failed to timely serve initial responses, and his response is not substantially compliant.  He also has not shown that his failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, as he did not oppose the initial motion or this motion to compel further.  Accordingly, he has waived objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objection, within 10 days.

Plaintiff requests a sanction of $5,310.00, consisting of $5,250.00 in attorney fees (10.5 hours at $500/hour) and $60.00 in costs.  The 3 hours preparing the motion plus 1 hour for the separate statement is excessive, and the Court finds that a reasonable amount of time for both is 2 hours.  The Court declines to award fees for the anticipated 1 hour reviewing an opposition and 2 hours drafting a reply brief, as no opposition was filed.  The Court also declines to award fees for 0.5 hours for the hearing, as the Court will hear both discovery motions together, and the Court already award attorney fees for the hearing in connection with the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories.  The Court finds that a reasonable total amount of time is 5 hours, totaling $5,000.00 in attorney fees.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.  The Court awards a sanction of $5,060.00 in attorney fees and costs, to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

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 27th day of October 2022