Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: BC649025, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC649025 Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Dept: O
HEARING DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 2023
RE: ELIZABETH TAYLOR, et al. vs ALKIVIADES DAVID, et
al. (BC649025)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor’s MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALKIVIADES DAVID’S RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE AND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR
Responding
Party: Defendant Alkiviades David
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor’s MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALKIVIADES DAVID’S RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE AND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR is GRANTED.
Defendant
David is ordered to provide Code compliant responses without objections to Plaintiff
Taylor’s Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and Request for Production of
Documents, Set Three, within 30 days of notice of this Order. Furthermore, the
court orders Plaintiff Taylor to pay an additional filing fee of $60 for her
improper filing within 5 court days of this Order.
Background
On February
2, 2017, Elizabeth Taylor and Chasity Jones (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint
against Alkiviades David, Hologram USA, Inc., Hologram USA Entertainment, Inc.,
Filmon Media Holdings, Inc., Filmon.TV Networks, Inc., Alki David Productions,
Inc., and Anakando Media Group USA (collectively, “Defendants”). The
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges eleven (11) causes of
On X date, P
filed complaint for X causes of action. ction against Defendants.
Of the eleven
(11) causes of action, two causes of action are asserted by Plaintiff Elizabeth
Taylor, and the nine (9) remaining causes of action are asserted by Plaintiff
Chasity Jones. Plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor asserts the following causes of
action against Defendants: (1) Discrimination Based Upon Disability in
Violation of FEHA, and (2) Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of
FEHA.
Plaintiff Chasity Jones asserted the following causes of
action against Defendants: (1) Employment Discrimination Sexual Harassment in
Violation of FEHA, (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (4) Retaliation in Violation of
FEHA, (5) Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code § 12653, (6) Sexual Battery in
Violation of Civ. Code § 1708.5, (7) Common Law Battery, (8) Sexual Assault,
and (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On September 14, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding a single cause of action for
Gender Violence in Violation of Civ. Code § 52.4, which would be asserted by
Plaintiff Chasity Jones.
On June 15, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Separate
Trials, seeking an order from the Court requiring the claims of each Plaintiff
to be tried in separate proceedings. That motion was granted.
On June 12, 2019, a judgment based on the jury’s special
verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff Chasity Jones and against Defendants
(the “Judgment”). The Judgment includes punitive damages entered against
Defendant David, individually, for his actions against Plaintiff Jones which
included gender violence, sexual battery, hostile work environment harassment,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On September 3, 2019, a mistrial was declared relating to
all of Plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor’s claims. Re-trial concerning Plaintiff
Elizabeth Taylor’s claims is currently scheduled for May 1, 2023.
On December
8, 2022, Plaintiff Elizabeth Taylor (hereinafter, “Plaintiff Taylor”) filed
instant motion seeking to compel Defendant Alkiviades David to respond to her
Request for Production, Set Three, and Special Interrogatories, Set Four,
without objections.
On December
29, 2022, Defendant Alkiviades David (hereinafter, “Defendant David”) untimely filed
his opposition to the motion by one day.
On January 4,
2023, Plaintiff Taylor filed her reply.
Legal
Standard
Within 30
days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories
are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the
propounding party...” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on
a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that
30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond
in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order
to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to
timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel
a response to its interrogatories, Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, without need to
meet and confer with opposing counsel. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Furthermore, “the party to whom the interrogatories are
directed waives . . . any objection to the interrogatories, including one based
on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
Within 30
days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the request
for production is made shall serve the original response to the request, unless
otherwise agreed to or ordered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) A party
requesting the production of documents may seek an order compelling a response
when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Moreover, where a party fails to timely respond to a
production request, the delinquent party waives all objections to production
and the requesting party may seek a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300.)
Discussion
A. Improper Filing
Multiple
motions should not be combined into a single filing. (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, Plaintiff
Taylor’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and Request
for Production of Documents, Set Three, concerns two separate discovery
requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff Taylor must pay the additional filing fee for
including multiple motions in one.
B. Merits
Here, on September 9, 2022, Plaintiff Taylor propounded Special
Interrogatories, Set Four, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three
on Defendant David. (Motion at pg. 3; Goldstein Decl. ¶¶ 1-2, Exhs. A-B.)
Despite Plaintiff Taylor’s attempt to meet an confer with Defendant David and
even after several extensions, Defendant David failed to provide responses to
either discovery request. (Motion at pg. 3; Goldstein Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. C.)
In opposition, Defendant David raises two arguments. First, he asserts
that he has been unable to respond to these discovery requests because he has
been consumed with litigation relating to the companion plaintiff’s
post-judgment collection attempts, which pertains to the loss of his Malibu,
California property. (Opposition at pg. 1.) With regard to this argument, the
mere fact that Defendant David has been preoccupied with other matters in this
case does not alleviate him of his duty to provide timely discovery responses.
Rather, this argument would have been more persuasive if raised in connection
with a motion for relief from waiver of discovery objections, which Defendant
David has failed to assert.
Second, Defendant David argues that discovery should be stayed pending
the contempt proceeding because he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right and
should not be forced to respond to discovery. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) In
reply, Plaintiff Taylor points out that the ongoing contempt proceeding relates
to Defendant David’s conduct in court and towards the companion plaintiff’s
collection attempts, whereas the discovery requests at issue here relate to
conduct that predates the conduct at issue in the contempt proceeding. (Reply
at pg. 2.) The court agrees. Because the discovery requests and the contempt
proceedings concern different facts and circumstances, Defendant David’s
exposure to criminal prosecution by way of a contempt hearing has no bearing to
his discovery obligations. Furthermore, Plaintiff Taylor would be prejudiced if
discovery was stayed at this juncture.
Consequently, because
the responses were not provided within the allotted period of time and the
information sought is generally discoverable, the court finds that Plaintiff Taylor is
entitled to an order compelling
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and Requests for Production of Documents,
Set Three.
Conclusion