Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01644, Date: 2024-07-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01644    Hearing Date: July 15, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

This motion was filed on March 7, 2024, by plaintiff Sarah Lopez (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant Glen John Apramian, M.D., Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to the following from Form Interrogatories – Employment Law (Set One): Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) Nos. 200.1, 200.3, 200.4, 204.3, 204.6, 204.7, 214.1, 214.2, 217.1. This set of discovery requests was served on August 8, 2023. Defendant served objections on October 2, 2023, before serving supplemental responses on December 20, 2023. Plaintiff argues that further responses are necessary because the supplemental responses are not complete and do not address each subpart. Plaintiff requests that the Court sanction Defendant and defense counsel in the amount of $2,400.

Defendant filed an opposition brief on July 1, 2024. Defendant states that by the time of the hearing, Plaintiff will have received its second supplemental response. Defendant argues that the motion should be denied as moot because of its intent to serve further responses. This prospect of compliance is insufficient to moot Defendant’s motion and the Court notes that Defendant does not contend that further responses are not warranted. Defendant only claims that it was unable to serve further supplemental responses due to “further development in the case”, including the filing of an amended complaint and answer, and the deposition of defendant Glen John Apramian, M.D. These events took place in December 2023 and January 2024, and are insufficient excuses for Defendant’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations or, at the very least, meaningfully engage with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the valid deficiencies of these responses in the following months. There is certainly no reason for why responses have not yet been served before the hearing date, which is nearly 11 months after the interrogatories were served.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for further responses is GRANTED. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, Defendant argues sanctions are not only barred by case law interpreting the Civil Discovery Act, but that the amount demanded by Plaintiff is excessive. The Court disagrees with both points.

First, Defendant argues that the decision in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504 prevents any sanctions award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 2023.010. However, the court in PWC held that those sections do not independently authorize the court to impose sanctions and specifically noted that the party requesting sanctions relied on no other underlying discovery statute authorizing sanctions. (Id., p. 504.)

In contrast, Plaintiff makes this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 and identifies an underlying statute which authorizes the court to impose sanctions “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) In light of this statute, the Court concludes it is authorized to impose sanctions in connection with this motion.

However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is excessive in amount. Plaintiff’s counsel states that her reasonable hourly rate is $300 and that she has spent 2 hours meeting and conferring with counsel over emails, four hours preparing the motion and declaration, and anticipates spending three hours preparing for and attending the hearing on this motion, for a total of 8 hours. The Court declines to award any sanctions in connection with Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer. Also, Plaintiff’s reply brief and supporting declaration is nearly identical to the five other discovery motions which remain pending. Therefore, the Court reduces the request for sanctions to $900, consisting of 3 hours at an hourly rate of $300. The Court does not impose sanctions against “Defendant’s counsel”, who was not identified by name in the notice of motion. No filing fees were requested.

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s motion for further responses is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to serve further supplemental responses within 10 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant in the reduced amount of $900, to be paid within 10 days of the date of this Order.

Dated this 15th day of July, 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.