Case Number: BC691986 Hearing Date: July 26, 2018 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motions to compel defendant’s responses to Requests for Production and Form Interrogatories

Moving Party: Plaintiff Doris Martinez

Resp. Party: None

The motion to compel defendant Ilobasco Enterprises, Inc.’s responses is GRANTED. Ilobasco is sanctioned in the amount of $760.00.

The motion to compel defendant Anna Griselda Rivera’s responses is GRANTED. Rivera is sanctioned in the amount of $235.00.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

These are the third and fourth of four motions to compel filed by Plaintiff against Defendants. The first two motions were heard and granted yesterday. None of these four motions have been opposed by Defendants. The Court is concerned over the lack opposition: if Defendants agreed that the motions were meritorious, they should have served answered. If Defendants believed that they were justified in their refusal to respond to discovery, they should have opposed these motions.

Defendants’ lack of response – and lack of opposition to these motions – makes the Court question whether defendants’ counsel has abandoned their clients.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff commenced this action on 01/29/18 against defendants for: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to pay wages when due / waiting time penalties; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (7) failure to provide change rooms and resting facilities; (8) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (9) retaliation; (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (11) unfair competition.

ANALYSIS:

1. Motion to compel defendant Ilobasco Enterprises, Inc.’s answers to Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Ilobasco Enterprises, Inc. to serve “full and complete verified answers, without objections, to Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set No. One.” (See Notice of Motion, p. ii:4-7.) Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $953.00. (See Id. at p. ii:12-15.)

Relevant Law

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom interrogatories are propounded within 30 days after service of the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, “[o]nce [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party’s] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

Discussion

On 03/20/18, plaintiff served defendant Ilobasco Enterprises, Inc. with Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Set No. 1.” (Motion, p. 2:14-16; Tovmasyan Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant’s responses were due by 04/24/18. (Motion, p. 2:17-18.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that as of 06/14/18, defendant has failed to serve any response to the request for production. (Tovmasyan Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant has failed to oppose the motion. By failing to produce respond, defendant has waived any objection to the requests. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $953.00 as compensation for the attorney fees incurred in bringing this motion. (See Notice of Motion, p. ii:12-15.) This sum represents 0.5 hours to draft the motion, an anticipated 0.5 hours to review the opposition and draft a reply, 1.5 hours to commute to and attend the hearing, $18 for parking, and a $60.00 filing fee. (See Tovmasyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel bills $350.00 per hour. (Ibid.) Because defendant has not opposed the motion, counsel will not need to spend any time drafting a reply. The Court will allow plaintiff to recover for 2 hours of attorney time, which includes the motion and attending the hearing. Plaintiff may also recover the filing fee. However, parking costs are not recoverable as sanctions on a motion to compel.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, Defendant is sanctioned $760.00

Motion to compel defendant Anna Griselda Rivera’ responses to Requests for Production.

Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Anna Griselda Rivera to serve “full and complete verified answers, without objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One.” (See Notice of Motion, p. ii:4-7.) Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $410.00. (See Id. at p. ii:13-16.)

Relevant Law

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom requests for production are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, “[o]nce [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party’s] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

Discussion

On 03/20/18, plaintiff served defendant Jose Rivera with Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. 1.” (Motion, p. 4:14-16; Tovmasyan Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant’s responses were due by 04/24/18. (Motion, p. 4:16-18.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that as of 06/14/18, defendant has failed to serve any response to the request for production. (Tovmasyan Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant has failed to oppose the motion. By failing to produce respond, defendant has waived any objection to the requests. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $410.00 as compensation for the attorney fees incurred in bringing this motion. (See Notice of Motion, p. ii:13-17.) This sum represents 0.5 hours to draft the motion, an anticipated 0.5 hours to review the opposition and draft a reply, and a $60.00 filing fee. (See Tovmasyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel bills $350.00 per hour. (Ibid.) Because defendant has not opposed the motion, counsel will not need to spend any time drafting a reply. Plaintiff may also recover the filing fee.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Anna Griselda Rivera is sanctioned $235.00