Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01476, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01476    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On June 27, 2023, plaintiff Jocelyn Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against her former employer, defendant Arcadia Living, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging various Labor Code violations. On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order compelling Defendant to comply with its responses to Plaintiff’s inspection demands. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.

If a party filing a response to an inspection demand thereafter fails to permit the inspection in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless the court finds the party subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or there are other circumstances making the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) There is no 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel compliance, nor is there a requirement to file a separate statement because the substance of the responses are not at issue.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not produced documents identified in its responses to her Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 68 to 70: “Exhibit A Employee Acknowledgment of Human Resources Policies and Procedures” and “Exhibit B Meal Period Waiver.” (Motion, p. 6; Kreiman Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that they sent defense counsel a meet and confer letter dated March 5, 2024, and followed-up on two separate occasions on March 11 and March 15, 2024. (Kreiman Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.) But, defense counsel did not respond to these attempts at informal resolution. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.)

In opposition, Defendant inaccurately argues that Plaintiff’s motion was untimely, but relies on the incorrect provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which addresses motions to compel further responses, section 2031.310. In contrast, Plaintiff’s motion is brought under section 2031.320. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff was required to submit a separate statement – again, an incorrect assertion because a motion to compel compliance does not dispute the content of the responses. (See CRC 3.1345, subd. (a).)

Ultimately, Defendant admits that several documents responsive to RFP Nos. 68, 69, and 70 were inadvertently omitted from its original production and were produced on May 3, 2024. (Opp., pp. 2-3.) Accordingly, the motion is moot and the only issue that remains is whether sanctions should be imposed.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff suffered no prejudice from its inadvertent omission of documents because Plaintiff, as the office manager of the facility, already had access to the files that were produced. But whether Plaintiff has been prejudiced is irrelevant to Defendant’s statement that it would produce documents (and Defendant’s subsequent compliance with this statement). Also, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer before filing this motion and it was unable to determine which specific documents were at issue because Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter “encompassed multiple requests.” This claim is not credible because the first page of Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter identifies the document requests and the specific documents sought.

Therefore, although the motion to compel compliance is denied as moot, the court imposes sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,260, consisting of 4 hours at a reasonable hourly rate of $550, and a $60 filing fee, payable within ten days of the date of this order.

Dated this 23rd day of May, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.