Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2020-01152775 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01152775, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Bakers’ Responses to Form Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 51, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 states, in part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” Appleton v. Superior Court (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636 (Appleton), states, “The responses were provided in this case but they were not verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citations.]”

Plaintiff served Defendant (Bar Bakers, LLC) with “Form Interrogatories—Employment Law Set No. 1” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

On 7-12-22, the court requested the parties to meet and confer to provide a joint statement to identify the remaining discovery issues for resolution by the court. (7-12-22 Minute Order.) The Joint Statement, filed on 8-19-22 under ROA No. 107, does not confirm whether Defendant has provided verified responses.

Since Defendant did not provide a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has not provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and Appleton. Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Bakers’ Responses to Form Interrogatories filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 51. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objections, to “Form Interrogatories—Employment Law Set No. 1” (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc. 2030.250) within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), states, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .” The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Form Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 41, is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff served Defendant (ACS Staffing Group, LLC) with “Form Interrogatories—Employment Law Set No. 1” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant has provided a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and Appleton. Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Form Interrogatories, filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 41, as MOOT.

The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Baker’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 55, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff served Defendant (Bar Bakers) with “Special Interrogatories-Set One on Defendant Bar Bakers By Plaintiff” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant did not provide a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has not provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and Appleton. Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Baker’s Responses to Special Interrogatories filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 55. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objections, to “Special Interrogatories-Set One on Defendant Bar Bakers By Plaintiff” on 12-3-21 (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc. 2030.250) within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 37, is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff served Defendant (ASC Staffing Group, LLC) with “Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories-Set One Propounded On Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant has provided a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and Appleton. Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Special Interrogatories, filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 37, as MOOT.

The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 5:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Bakers’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Motion), filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 63, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 states in part, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: . . . [¶] (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” Appleton v. Superior Court (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636 (Appleton), states, “The responses were provided in this case but they were not verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citations.]”

Plaintiff served Defendant (Bar Bakers) with “Request for Production of Documents-Set One Propounded On Defendant Bar Bakers By Plaintiff” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant did not provide a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has not provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 and Appleton. Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bakers’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 63. The court orders Defendant to provide verified responses, without objections, to “Request for Production of Documents-Set One Propounded On Defendant Bar Bakers By Plaintiff” (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A; Code Civ. Proc. 2031.250) within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the court’s ruling.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), states, “Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .” The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 6:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Motion), filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 33, is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff served Defendant (ACS Staffing Group, LLC) with “Request for Production of Documents-Set One Propounded On Defendant ASC Staff Group, LLC By Plaintiff” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant has provided a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 and Appleton. Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 33, as MOOT.

The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 7:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Bakers’ Responses to Requests for Admissions (Motion), filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 59, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, states, in relevant part, “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: . . . [¶] (b) The requesting party may 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.)” Appleton v. Superior Court (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636 (Appleton), states, “The responses were provided in this case but they were not verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citations.]”

Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Chan) (1997) 57 Cal.App. 4th 1546, 1556 (disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, supra, 21 Cal.4th at 983 fn. 12) (Allen-Pacific), states, “Section 2033 provides only two forms of relief to a party who fails to respond to RFA's or who, as here, files a legally deficient response. The first is to file a proper response after the motion to deem the matters specified in the RFA's admitted, but ‘before the hearing on the motion,’ as permitted under subdivision (k). The second is to seek a protective order under subdivision (e). Where, as here, neither form of relief is sought, the party propounding the unanswered RFA is entitled to the relief specified in subdivision (k) regardless of prejudice. The failure to file a timely response is deemed prejudicial by the statute; there is ordinarily no judicial authority to gainsay that presumption, which can be rebutted, if at all, only by a very unusual situation such as that in Brigante v. Huang, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, where response was impossible and the party propounding the RFA knew it.”

Plaintiff served Defendant (Bar Bakers, LLC) with “Request for Admissions-Set One Propounded On Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC By Plaintiff” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant did not provide a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has not provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 and Appleton. Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant Bar Bakers’ Responses to Requests for Admissions filed on 3-1-22 under ROA No. 59. The court orders that “. . . the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in . . .” “Request for Admissions-Set One Propounded On Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC By Plaintiff” (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), states in part, “. . . It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Motion No. 8:

Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Requests for Admissions (Motion), filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 29, is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff served Defendant (ASC Staffing Group, LLC) with “Request for Admissions-Set One Propounded On Defendant ASC Staff Group, LLC By Plaintiff” on 12-3-21. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Motion, Plaintiff has not received responses to this discovery request. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sanctions (Opposition), filed on 6-28-22 under ROA No. 81, states, “. . . Defendants have provided answers, responses, and related documents to Plaintiff for the subject discovery requests contemporaneously herewith. . . .” (Opposition; 1:19-20.) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Baker’s, LLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (Reply), filed on 7-11-22 under ROA No. 84, acknowledges that Plaintiff has received untimely responses to this discovery requests. The declaration in support of the Reply states, “2. On June 28, 2022, Defendants ASC Staffing Group, LLC and Bar Bakers LLC served untimely responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, without verifications. All of Defendants’ responses included general and specific objections. Additionally, Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete as they did not include responses to all subparts. [¶] 3. On June 30, 2022, Defendant ASC Staffing Group, LLC served verifications. As of the filing of this Reply brief, Plaintiff has yet to receive any verifications for Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC’s discovery responses.” (7-11-22 Neal Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.)

Since Defendant has provided a verification with Defendant’s responses to the discovery request at issue, Defendant has provided responses within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a)(1), and Appleton. Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Maura Medina) Motion to Compel Defendant ACS’ Responses to Requests for Admissions, filed on 2-25-22 under ROA No. 29, as MOOT.

The court awards a monetary sanction of $760.00 against Responding Party and in favor of Moving Party. (2-25-22 Neal Decl., ¶ 5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Plaintiff is to give notice.