Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV01280, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01280    Hearing Date: April 4, 2025    Dept: 45

JESSICA LINARES V. KIEWIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY (X8)

Date of Hearing:        April 4, 2025                          Trial Date:       Jan. 12, 2026

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        24STCV01280

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Jessica Linares

Responding Party:     (1-4) Defendant Kiewit Corporation

                                    (5-8) Defendant Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.

Notice:                        OK

BACKGROUND

This is an employment action arising out of the alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour violations perpetrated against Plaintiff Jessica Linares. Plaintiff alleges she worked for Defendants Kiewit Corporation (“Kiewit Corp.”) and Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (“Kiewit West”) as a full-time non-exempt “Grade Checker” beginning on July 6, 2021. Defendants Ben Doe and David Moss were her supervisors. In January 2022, Plaintiff was a passenger in a car when it collided with another vehicle. She was injured, and the injuries led to physical disabilities that required reasonable accommodation from her employers. Rather than accommodate her disability, Doe and Moss, and through them Kiewit Corp. and Kiewit West, harassed and eventually fired her. In addition to this alleged disability and/or gender-based discrimination, etc., Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to pay her for “reporting time” and failed to timely pay her wages upon separation, in violation of the Labor Code.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 17, 2024, asserting claims for:

1)      Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy;

2)      Discrimination in Violation of Government Code section 12940 et seq. (“the FEHA”);

3)      Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA;

4)      Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA;

5)      Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of the FEHA;

6)      Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA;

7)      Declaratory Relief;

8)      Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay; and

9)      Waiting Time Penalties (Lab. Code, §§ 201-203).

On August 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant eight (8) motions to compel Defendants Kiewit Corp. and Kiewit West (“Defendants”), respectively, to further respond to her (1) Form Interrogatories – General, (2) Form Interrogatories – Employment, (3) Special Interrogatories, and (4) Requests for Production of Documents.

On March 21, 2025, Defendants filed their oppositions to all eight motions. On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff replied.

Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with each of her motions, in varying sums.

[TENTATIVE] RULING:

Plaintiff’s motions are denied as moot; Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are granted in part. The Court imposes $8,490.00 in sanctions jointly on Kiewit Corp. and its counsel and $9,427.50 jointly on Kiewit West and its counsel.

SUBSTANCE OF MOTIONS

Defendants served supplemental responses to all the discovery in dispute on March 18, 2025. (Shook Decls., Exhs. 4.) The substance of Plaintiff’s motions is therefore moot.

Sanctions remain unresolved.

REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

A party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses is subject to sanctions unless it demonstrates substantial justification for its failure to respond or that imposition of sanctions would otherwise be unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).) A party cannot avoid sanctions by serving supplemental responses prior to hearing or declining to file an opposition. (CRC 3.1348(a).)

Defendants argue Plaintiffs did not sufficiently meet and confer, so sanctions should be denied. The Court disagrees.

Plaintiff propounded discovery more than a year ago, on April 3, 2024. (Berkowitz Decls., ¶ 2 and Exhs. A.) Plaintiff provided multiple extensions for Defendants to initially respond. (Id., ¶¶ 3 and Exhs. B.) Defendants provided responses that were plainly insufficient in various respects. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel then sent a reasonably detailed meeting-and-conference letter to Defendant’s counsel. (Id., Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel also notified Defendants’ counsel of the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion to compel, then provided a further extension contingent on an extended motion deadline. (Ibid.) After Defendants accepted a final extension, Plaintiff then waited until the last possible day to file her motions, giving Defendants as much time as possible to provide sufficient responses. Plaintiff filed her motions in August 2024, but Defendants did not supplement their responses until March 2025 – an exorbitant delay for which Defendants offer no excuse.

Defendants have not demonstrated a substantial justification for their failure to sufficiently respond to any of Plaintiff’s discovery. They have also not demonstrated imposition of sanctions would otherwise be unjust. Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions.

Plaintiff’s counsel attests to qualifications that justify his $750 hourly rate. (See Berkowitz Decls., ¶¶ 5.) For each of the motions, Counsel attests to the following time spent drafting and reviewing an opposition and reply:

The Court finds these hours slightly excessive. First, 5.0 hours to draft a motion regarding general interrogatories is unnecessary, and the Court reduces the award to 2.0 hours for each. Also, reviewing Defendants’ oppositions took minimal time, because they relied entirely on Defendants’ supplemental responses, with little substantive legal argument. Plaintiff’s replies were then substantially identical for each motion. And the Court consolidated the hearings for a single date.

The Court reduces each award by 3.0 hours for the motions regarding general form interrogatories. And rather than award sanctions separately for opposition, reply, and hearing on each motion, the Court awards 4.0 hours total for all eight. The Court therefore deducts 5.0 hours ($3,750.00) from Plaintiffs’ sanctions award against each defendant, as follows:

Also, based on the extreme delay in providing substantive responses, the Court finds Defendants’ counsel’s advice, or lack thereof, contributed to their clients’ discovery misconduct. (CCP § 2023.030(a).) Sanctions are imposed jointly on Defendants and their counsel.

Defendant Kiewit Corp. and/or its counsel are ordered to pay $8,490.00 in sanctions to Plaintiff and/or her counsel within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Kiewit West and/or its counsel are ordered to pay $9,427.50 in sanctions to Plaintiff and/or her counsel within 30 days of this order.