Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV01158, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01158    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 45

BLANCA ISABEL SANDOVAL vs AFFLUENT HR, et al.

motionS to compel responses to special interrogatories, set two and request for monetary sanctions

Date of Hearing:        April 23, 2025                         Trial Date:       March 9, 2026

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        24STCV01158

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Blanca Isabel Sandoval

Responding Party:     No opposition

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Guzman Decl. ¶3.)

BACKGROUND

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff Blanca Isabel Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment law action against Defendants Affluent HR, Komar Distribution Services, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, asserting 20 causes of action, including disability discrimination, retaliation, and wage and labor claims.  

On May 2, 2024, default was entered against Defendants Komar Distribution Services, Inc. and Affluent HR. On September 11, 2024, the parties stipulated to set aside the default against Defendants.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Blanca Isabel Sandoval’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Blanca Isabel Sandoval moves the court for an order compelling Defendant Affluent HR to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Plaintiff also moves this court for an order mandating monetary sanctions against Defendant and their counsel, Thomas Sands, Esq., in the amount of $2,397.50. Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds Defendant has failed to respond in any manner to Plaintiff’s discovery.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; 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. (CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may also move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two. (Guzman Decl. ¶2, Exh. A.) When no responses were received by January 31, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter as a courtesy to Mr. Sands. (Guzman Decl. ¶3, Exh. B.) On February 4, 2025, Mr. Sands communicated that Defendants would serve discovery responses without objections by March 6, 2025. (Guzman Decl. ¶4, Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to this extension. (Guzman Decl. ¶4, Exh. C.) As of March 21, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel has not received any discovery responses or communications from Defendant. (Guzman Decl. ¶5.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff Blanca Isabel Sandoval’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks $2,397.50 in monetary sanctions for having to bring the instant motion. This amount includes $2,337.50 for her preparing the motion, plus the $60 filing fee. Plaintiff does not provide how they reached this number. Accordingly, the court grants the request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,260.00.