Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 21STCV30997 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV30997, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30997 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: August 24, 2022

CASE NAME: Chris Cowart v. LAC Metro

CASE NO.: 21STCV30997

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant LAC Metro

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Chris Cowart

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to the Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Production of Documents

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Production of Documents are GRANTED.

2. Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff Chris Cowart (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against LAC Metro (“Defendant”). The complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) Wrongful Termination in Retaliation and (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The complaint alleges that he worked for the Defendant from February 2008 to July 2020. Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated, but the complaint is unclear.

Defendant’s three Motions to Compel Responses were filed on June 8, 2022. Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on June 22, 2022. Defendant’s reply was filed on August 17, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD

A court is permitted to intervene if a party fails to timely serve responses to discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) The propounding party may move the court for orders compelling responses to interrogatories and demands for inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Furthermore, if a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2033.280.)

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses). Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.

If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)

ANALYSIS:

Defendant filed three separate motions to compel for responses to special and form interrogatories as well as production of documents. The motions are generally the same so the motion will be combined.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Production of Documents. These discovery requests were propounded on December 1, 2021, via mail. Plaintiff’s responses due January 5, 2021. (Dec. Gutierrez ¶ 3.) Plaintiff did not provide any responses.

While Plaintiff did provide a response, it did not provide any justification for failing to provide the responses; rather, it indicates that he would not provide anything due to fraud, specifically as it relates to a previous demurrer.

All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections. Here, Plaintiff failed to provide responses to requests. Plaintiff was served with the requests but did not provide a response. As such, the Motions to Compel are GRANTED.

Sanctions:

Defendant requests $1,200 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, pursuant to CCP § 2030.030(a), § 2023.040. This is based on 2 hours for the motion, an anticipatory 2 hours for the reply, and an anticipatory 3.5 hours for preparing for oral argument and the attending the hearing. The hourly rate charged to MTA is $160 per hour. Sanctions are appropriate as Plaintiff failed to provide responses. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $500 total for all motions.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Production of Documents are GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file verified responses, without objection, within 30 days service of this order.

Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $500 payable within 30 days of service of this order. .

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court