Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 20STCV03194, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES to special interrogatories (set two) FILED BY PLAINTIFF MARKEITHA HARRIS; motion to deem rEQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET TWO) AS ADMITTTED filed by plaintiff vanessa johnson

This is an employment dispute involving FEHA, Labor Code, and other tort claims arising out of racial discrimination allegations. Plaintiffs Markeitha Harris (“Harris”) and Vanessa Johnson (“Johnson”) filed this action on January 23, 2020 and a First Amended Complaint on December 18, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on March 14, 2022 against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”); Maria Lieras; Barbara Ferrer, Ph.D, MPH; Gerardo Pinedo; Mary Orticke; Jennifer Rivera; Dina Azer; Evon Coburin; Mei Lien Chu; Michael Coter; and Cicille Ellorin (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiffs allege twenty-seven (27) causes of action.

On May 4, 2022, Defendants filed separate demurrers and a combined motion to strike portions of the SAC. Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On March 14, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation that Defendants would withdraw their demurrers and motion to strike, and Plaintiffs would amend the SAC per a joint stipulation filed on March 3, 2023. (03/14/23 Minute Order.) On March 27, 2023, Defendant County filed an answer.

On January 11, 2023, Harris propounded on the County her Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Form Interrogatories (Set Two). (Declarations of Steven Zelig [Zelig Decl.], ¶ 5; Exh. 1.)

Also, on January 11, 2023, Johnson propounded on the County her Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and her Requests for Admissions (Set Two). (Zelig Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1.)

On February 3, 2023, the County filed a Motion for Protective Order as to Harris’s Requests for Admissions (Set Two) and Johnson’s Requests for Admissions (Set Two). The County amended the motion on April 3, 2023, and such amendment only concerned deposition notices.

On June 21, 2024, Harris filed a motion to compel the City to respond to set two of her special interrogatories, nos. 31-202 (the “Harris SROG Motion”). The Harris SROG Motion requests monetary sanctions of $6,060.00 against the County and its counsel of record Peterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Gregorio, Burkwitz & Su, LLP. The Harris SROG Motion has a court reservation identification number ending in 8402.

Also, on June 21, 2024, Johnson filed a motion to deem the matters in her requests for admissions, set two, nos. 18-33 as admitted (the “Johnson RFA Motion”). The Johnson RFA Motion requests monetary sanctions of $6,060.00 against the County and its counsel of record Peterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Gregorio, Burkwitz & Su, LLP. The Johnson RFA Motion has a court reservation identification number ending in 4979.

Based on a review of the Court’s electronic filing system, a hearing on a motion to compel discovery with a reservation identification number ending in 6348 is set for February 24, 2025. However, the Court has not located a motion containing such a reservation number and no motion was filed in connection with such a reservation number. Plaintiffs filed seven discovery motions on June 21, 2024. Each of the filed motions indicated that it was one of eight motions. The Court assumes that the eighth (and missing) motion is a motion to compel responses to set two of requests for production filed by Harris. The Court assumes as such because, on February 3, 2025, the County filed an opposition to such a motion, but no moving papers correspond to such a motion. The Court cannot rule on a motion if it is not filed properly with the Court. All motions are required to have been filed at least 16 court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, (b).) As of February 20, 2025 at 1:00pm, the missing motion has not been filed with the Court.

On December 5, 2024, the County filed respective oppositions to the Harris SROG Motion and the Johnson RFA Motion.

On February 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a combined opposition as to the Harris SROG Motion and other discovery motions on calendar.

The Court notes that the declarations of Mr. Zelig in support of the Harris SROG Motion, and the Johnson RFA Motion (collectively, the “Motions”) are substantially similar but-for identification of the specific discovery sought pursuant to each motion.

Jury trial is set to commence on April 7, 2025. The discovery cut-off date is 30 days prior to trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.) While not before the Court at this time, the Court notes that additional discovery motions in this matter are set for hearing on March 28, 2025.

Plaintiff’s Markeitha Harris’s Motion to Compel Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Responses to Special Interrogatories Set Two (the “Harris SROG Motion”) is DENIED as moot. The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff Harris’s request for monetary sanctions pursuant to such motion. Defendant County and its counsel of record are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions of $1,660.00, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff Harris, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this order as to the Harris SROG Motion.

Plaintiff Vanessa Johnson’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions Set Two (the “Johnson RFA Motion”) Served Upon Defendant County of Los Angeles is DENIED as moot. The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART as to the Johnson RFA Motion. Defendant County and its counsel of record are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions of $1,660.00, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff Johnson, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this order as to the Johnson RFA Motion.

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, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

After service of requests for admission, a party has 30 days to respond “in writing under oath and separately to each RFA.” (St Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774.) When a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission “[t]he party to whom the request was directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [the] motion.” (Ibid.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. A court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Appropriateness of Compelling the County’s Responses to Harris’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two

Harris propounded set two of her special interrogatories, nos. 31-202, on the County on January 11, 2023. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1.) The purpose of the special interrogatories was to narrow issues for trial, to obtain thorough written discovery information which would otherwise require deposing several County personnel, to discover the factual basis for the County’s positions and defenses herein, and to conserve the resources of the Court, the jury, and Plaintiff Harris. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 5.) The County’s responses were due on or about February 13, 2023; however, such responses were never served. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 6.)

Harris alleges that on February 3, 2023, 106 minutes after Harris’s counsel attempted to meet and confer via email with the County’s counsel, that the County’s counsel filed a Motion for Protective Order, putting a hold on all Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Zelig Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; Exh. 3.) The County withdrew its protective order which thereby eliminated any alleged “hold” on Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 11.) The County later filed an Amended Motion for Protective Order and withdrew their earlier-filed protective order as to the discovery at issue in the Harris SROG Motion. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. 5.) Counsel for Harris states that responses should have been served, but Defendant County has not served any responses to any of the discovery propounded on Defendant County on January 11, 2023. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 13.)

In opposition to the Harris SROG Motion, counsel for the County, Irene A. Yousefi, Esq. (“Yousefi”), declares that in meet and confer communications that occurred in March of 2023, Plaintiffs only focused on policy of equity complaints and investigations. (Yousefi Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8; Exh. C.) The County indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to withdraw the remaining written discovery, and the only discovery requests which were not withdrawn were the requests for the policy of equity complaints and investigations. (Yousefi Decl., ¶ 6.) The County served responses to Harris’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on December 4, 2024. (Yousefi Decl. ¶ 11; Exh. E.)

“If a party provides an untimely interrogatory response that does not contain objections and that sets forth legally valid responses to each interrogatory, the untimely response might completely or substantially resolve the issues raised by a motion to compel responses under section 2030.290.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409 (Sinaiko).) “Even in such cases, however, the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id. at p. 409.)

The County contends that it has served responses in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure. (Opp’n at pp. 3-4.) The Court has reviewed the County’s responses to Harris’s second set of special interrogatories, and finds that the County has provided verified, objection-free responses and has answered each interrogatory. (Yousefi Decl., ¶ 11; Exh. E.) On reply, Harris argues that the County’s claim that the motion is moot and that the responses are in substantial compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure is without merit.

Given that the County has filed substantive and objection-free responses to Harris’s second set of special interrogatories prior to the hearing on the motion, the Court DENIES Harris’s request to compel the County’s responses to set two of her special interrogatories under Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.

If Harris takes issue with the County’s responses to the SROGs at issue, then Harris may seek to move to compel further responses from the County to such discovery.

Harris requests sanctions of $6,060.00 against the County and its counsel of record, which consists of $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $60.00 in filing fee costs.

Harris’s counsel, Steven Zelig, charges an hourly rate of $800.00. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 16.) Zelig states that he spent five (5) hours preparing the motion. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 16.) Zelig anticipates spending one (1) hour drafting a reply and 1.5 hours preparing for and participating in a remote hearing. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 19.) In sum, Zelig anticipates a total of 7.5 hours at $800 per hour spent as to the instant motion, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Zelig Decl., ¶ 20.)

The Court disagrees with the County’s contention that it acted with substantial justification in not providing a timely response to Harris’s second set of special interrogatories. (Opp’n at pp. 4-6.) Neither Exhibit C nor Exhibit D attached to the declaration of the County’s counsel, Ms. Yousefi, sets forth any indication that Harris withdrew or otherwise made any indication that no responses were sought to the second set of her special interrogatories. Moreover, the Court does not understand the County’s position given that the County responded to Harris’s special interrogatories in December 2024. If Plaintiffs had indeed withdrawn their request for written discovery in March of 2023, why would the County have provided theses responses?

The Court therefore finds that the County’s delayed response to discovery warranted the instant motion and sanctions are appropriate.

Given that the declarations in support of the Motions are substantively similar and the relative straightforward nature of the Motions, the Court will award reasonable monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,660.00 as to the Harris SROG Motion. Such an amount represents two (2) hours of work on the motion plus the $60.00 filing fee.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART as to the Harris SROG Motion. Defendant County and its counsel of record are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions of $1,660.00, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff Harris, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this order as to the Harris SROG Motion.

Plaintiff Johnson moves to have this Court deem admitted Requests for Admission, Set Two, Nos. 18-33 propounded on the County. Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions of $6,060.00 against the County and its counsel of record.

Initially, the Court notes that the County has now served responses to the second set of Plaintiff Johnson’s requests for admissions. Said responses were served on October 2, 2024. (Yousefi Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. G.) On reply, Plaintiff Johnson acknowledges that the County has now provided code-compliant responses to her second set of RFAs. (Reply at p. 2:1-4.)

Thus, the sole issue as to the Johnson RFA Motion is the issue of monetary sanctions. As with the other Motions, the County argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to withdraw written discovery during March 2023 meet and confer discussions. (Yousefi Decl., ¶¶ 6-10; Exhs. D, E, and F.) However, the exhibits offered by the County do not support such a contention. (Id.) Again, the Court finds the County’s contention logically inconsistent. If Plaintiffs did agree to withdraw all written discovery, it follows that no responses would have been required to Plaintiff Johnson’s second set of requests for admissions. However, the County ultimately responded to such discovery in October of 2024.

Also, the Court finds that the County’s argument that Plaintiff Johnson’s second set of RFAs are duplicative of her first set of RFAs has no bearing on whether sanctions should be imposed. (Opp’n at pp. 7-9.) Whereas the first set of RFAs were broad in scope, the second set of RFAs were narrowed in scope. (Yousefi Decl. Exhs. A, C.) Thus, the Court does not find that Plaintiff Johnson propounded duplicative RFAs, and the Court rejects such an argument.

The Court finds that the County’s initial refusal to respond to discovery necessitated the instant motion. Thus, the imposition of monetary sanctions is mandatory under CCP § 2033.280.

Given that the declarations in support of the Motions are substantively similar and the relative straightforward nature of the Johnson RFA Motion, the Court will award reasonable monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,660.00 as to the Johnson RFA Motion. Such an amount represents two (2) hours of work on the motion plus the $60.00 filing fee.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART as to the Johnson RFA Motion. Defendant County and its counsel of record are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions of $1,660.00, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff Johnson, through her counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this order as to the Johnson RFA Motion.

The pending motions are deemed moot as code compliant responses have been served prior to the hearing. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

[1] This motion has a reservation identification number ending in 8402.

[2] This motion has a reservation identification number ending in 4979.