CASE NAME: LABOR COMMISSIONER FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. CANTON PROSPECT INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.: 19-CV-345132

CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COURT ARE THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFF LABOR COMMISSIONER FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (“PLAINTIFF”): (1) THE MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT YIFU HE (“YIFU”) TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO (“RFA”), AND FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; (2) THE MOTION TO COMPEL YIFU TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (“SI”), AND FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND (3) THE MOTION TO COMPEL YIFU TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO (“RPD”), AND FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

THIS IS AN ACTION FOR RETALIATION. IN APRIL 2015, COMPLAINANT X.Y. (“COMPLAINANT”) WAS HIRED TO WORK AS A COOK FOR DEFENDANT CANTON PROSPECT INC. (“CANTON”). (COMPLAINT, ¶¶ 1, 2, & 7.) COMPLAINANT REPORTED A WORK INJURY ON MAY 17, 2018, AND HE SUBSEQUENTLY DID NOT RETURN TO WORK FOR CANTON. (ID. AT ¶ 8.) COMPLAINANT LATER FILED A WAGE CLAIM WITH THE DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT (“DLSE”) ON JUNE 7, 2018, ALLEGING THAT HE WAS OWED OVERTIME AND WAITING TIME PENALTIES. (ID. AT ¶ 9.)

ON JUNE 25, 2018, YIFU—AN OWNER, OFFICER, AND DIRECTOR OF CANTON—SENT A LONG, THREATENING VOICE MESSAGE TO COMPLAINANT. (COMPLAINT, ¶ 10.) YIFU STATED THAT HIS “FRIEND HAD WORKERS WHO FILED WAGE CLAIMS WITH THE LABOR COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, AND [HIS] FRIEND WAS ADVISED BY HIS ATTORNEY THAT A LETTER COULD BE WRITTEN TO IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES SO THAT THE WORKERS COULD BE DEPORTED.” (IBID.) YIFU THEN COMPARED “AN EMPLOYER BEING SUED BY ITS EMPLOYEE TO THE UNITED STATES GOING TO WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN AND OSAMA BIN LADEN AFTER 9/11 OR GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ; LIKE THE UNITED STATES WENT TO WAR AND DESTROYED ITS OPPONENTS IN ORDER TO NOT BE HUMILIATED, [YIFU] STATED THAT THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT TO THE END.” (IBID.) YIFU ENDED HIS MESSAGE BY ASKING IF COMPLAINANT UNDERSTOOD HIS MESSAGE. (IBID.)

COMPLAINANT FILED A RETALIATION COMPLAINT AGAINST CANTON AND YIFU (COLLECTIVELY, “DEFENDANTS”) WITH THE DLSE ON JULY 3, 2018. (COMPLAINT, ¶ 11.) SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DEFENDANTS WERE INFORMED OF THE RETALIATION COMPLAINT. (ID. AT ¶ 12.)

ON AUGUST 10, 2018, AN ANONYMOUS PERSON CALLED COMPLAINANT’S PARENTS AND PRESSURED THEM FOR COMPLAINANT’S WIFE’S CONTACT INFORMATION. (COMPLAINT, ¶ 13.)

COMPLAINANT’S WIFE THEN RECEIVED TWO PHONE CALLS FROM AN ANONYMOUS CALLER WHO PRESSURED HER TO HAVE COMPLAINANT CALL HIS “BOSS” TO SETTLE HIS CASE. (ID. AT ¶ 14.) COMPLAINANT CALLED THE ANONYMOUS CALLER BACK AND WAS DIRECTED TO CALL HIS “BOSS.” (ID. AT ¶ 15.)

ON JANUARY 7, 2019, FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION, THE DLSE NOTIFIED DEFENDANTS OF ITS DETERMINATION THAT DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT VIOLATED LABOR CODE SECTIONS 98.6, 244, 1019, AND 1102.5. (COMPLAINT, ¶¶ 1 & 16.) THE DLSE MADE VARIOUS DEMANDS, WHICH DEFENDANTS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH. (ID. AT ¶¶ 16 & 17.)

BASED ON THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS, PLAINTIFF FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, ALLEGING CAUSES OF ACTION FOR: (1) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 98.6; (2) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1019; AND (3) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5.

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

ON JUNE 25, 2019, PLAINTIFF SERVED YIFU WITH THE RFA, SI, AND RPD VIA U.S. MAIL.

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT AN EMAIL TO YIFU’S COUNSEL ON AUGUST 6, 2019, BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED YIFU’S RESPONSES TO THE RFA, SI, AND RPD. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ASSERTED THAT YIFU’S RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WERE DUE ON JULY 30, 2019, AND THEREFORE LATE. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL STATED THAT PLAINTIFF CONSIDERED ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTS WAIVED.

THAT SAME DAY, YIFU’S COUNSEL RESPONDED THAT HE HAD BEEN BUSY AND UNABLE TO SERVE YIFU’S RESPONSES ON PLAINTIFF. YIFU’S COUNSEL ADVISED THAT HE WOULD SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH THE RESPONSES AND YIFU WOULD FILE A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF HIS OBJECTIONS.

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT A FOLLOW-UP EMAIL TO YIFU’S COUNSEL ON AUGUST 13, 2019, REGARDING THE STATUS OF YIFU’S RESPONSES TO THE RFA, SI, AND RPD. YIFU’S COUNSEL REPLIED THAT HE ANTICIPATED PROVIDING RESPONSES BY THE END OF THE WEEK AND YIFU WOULD FILE A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF HIS OBJECTIONS SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

ON AUGUST 15, 2019, YIFU SERVED PLAINTIFF WITH OBJECTION-ONLY RESPONSES TO THE RFA, SI, AND RPD VIA U.S. MAIL. YIFU’S COUNSEL SENT AN EMAIL TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITH A COURTESY COPY OF THE RESPONSES. IN HIS EMAIL, YIFU’S COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YIFU NEEDED TO FILE A MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER TO PRESERVE HIS OBJECTIONS. YIFU’S COUNSEL ASSERTED THAT SUCH A MOTION WOULD LIKELY BE GRANTED AND ASKED PLAINTIFF TO “RETROACTIVELY GRANT AN EXTENSION” TO AUGUST 15, 2019.

THE NEXT DAY, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL RESPONDED VIA EMAIL AND DECLINED TO GRANT YIFU THE REQUESTED EXTENSION OF TIME. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL FURTHER ASSERTED THAT YIFU’S OBJECTIONS LACKED MERIT AND FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE PROVIDED OR YIFU SHOULD PROCEED WITH FILING HIS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER.

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL CONTINUED HER ATTEMPTS TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING YIFU’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND POTENTIAL MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER THROUGH MID-SEPTEMBER, BUT WAS UNABLE TO INFORMALLY RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE.

ON OCTOBER 4, 2019, PLAINTIFF FILED AND SERVED THE INSTANT DISCOVERY MOTIONS. YIFU FILED PAPERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS ON DECEMBER 6, 2019. ON DECEMBER 12, 2019, PLAINTIFF FILED REPLY PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PENDING MOTIONS.

DISCUSSION

PLAINTIFF MOVES TO COMPEL YIFU TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFA NO. 11, SI NOS. 38-46, AND RPD NOS. 16-21, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, AND FOR AWARDS OF MONETARY SANCTIONS.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

IF A PARTY DEMANDING A RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION DEEMS AN OBJECTION TO A PARTICULAR REQUEST IS WITHOUT MERIT OR TOO GENERAL, THAT PARTY MAY MOVE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE. (CODE CIV. PROC., § 2033.290, SUBD. (A).) IF A TIMELY MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION HAS BEEN FILED, THE BURDEN IS ON THE RESPONDING PARTY TO JUSTIFY ANY OBJECTIONS OR FAILURE TO FULLY ANSWER. (FAIRMONT INS. CO. V. SUPER. CT. (2000) 22 CAL.4TH 245, 255 (FAIRMONT).)

IF A PARTY DEMANDING A RESPONSE TO AN INTERROGATORY DEEMS THAT AN OBJECTION TO AN INTERROGATORY IS WITHOUT MERIT OR TOO GENERAL, THAT PARTY MAY MOVE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE. (CODE CIV. PROC., § 2030.300, SUBD. (A)(1)–(3).) IF A TIMELY MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO AN INTERROGATORY HAS BEEN FILED, THE BURDEN IS ON THE RESPONDING PARTY TO JUSTIFY ANY OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUEST. (FAIRMONT, SUPRA, 22 CAL.4TH AT P. 255; COY V. SUPER. CT. (WOLCHER) (1962) 58 CAL.2D 210, 220-221 (COY).)

IF A PARTY DEMANDING A RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DEEMS THAT AN OBJECTION IN THE RESPONSE IS WITHOUT MERIT OR TOO GENERAL, THAT PARTY MAY MOVE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE. (SEE CODE CIV. PROC., § 2031.310, SUBD. (A).) ON A MOTION TO COMPEL A FURTHER RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, IT IS THE MOVING PARTY’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT. (KIRKLAND V. SUPER. CT. (2002) 95 CAL.APP.4TH 92, 98 (KIRKLAND).) ONCE GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE RESPONDING PARTY TO JUSTIFY ANY OBJECTIONS. (IBID.)

II. MERITS OF THE MOTION

A. GOOD CAUSE

AS AN INITIAL MATTER, PLAINTIFF MUST FIRST ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT BY THE RPD. TO ESTABLISH “GOOD CAUSE,” PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW BOTH RELEVANCE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER (E.G., HOW THE INFORMATION IN THE DOCUMENTS WOULD TEND TO PROVE OR DISPROVE SOME ISSUE IN THE CASE) AND SPECIFIC FACTS JUSTIFYING DISCOVERY (E.G., WHY SUCH INFORMATION IS NECESSARY FOR TRIAL PREPARATION OR TO PREVENT SURPRISE AT TRIAL). (GLENFED DEVELOP. CORP. V. SUPER. CT. (1997) 53 CAL.4TH 1113, 1117.)

WHILE PLAINTIFF MAKES LITTLE EFFORT TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF GOOD CAUSE FOR THE REQUESTS AT ISSUE, THE COURT FINDS THAT GOOD CAUSE IS SELF-EVIDENT FOR THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT BY RPD NOS. 16-21. RPD NOS. 16-18 AND 20 ASK YIFU TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO HIS CELLULAR PHONE ACCOUNT(S), COMMUNICATIONS MADE THROUGH HIS CELLULAR PHONE ACCOUNT(S), HIS COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH THE WECHAT APP, AND HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH PERSONS LOCATED IN SHANDONG PROVINCE, CHINA FROM MAY 2018 TO THE PRESENT. SIMILARLY, RPD NO. 19 ASKS YIFU TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HIM AND THE PERSON “ASSOCIATED WITH PHONE NUMBER 138-5455-5455.” LASTLY, RPD NO. 21 ASKS YIFU TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED IN HIS RESPONSES TO THE SI. THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT BY THE REQUESTS WILL LIKELY ELICIT EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED DIRECTLY RELATE TO MATTERS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF DISCOVERY. DOCUMENTS REGARDING SUCH MATTERS ARE NECESSARY FOR PLAINTIFF TO EVALUATE THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIMS AND TO PREPARE THE CASE FOR TRIAL. THUS, THERE IS GENERALLY GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT BY RPD NOS. 16-21.

B. WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS

NEXT, THE COURT CONSIDERS WHETHER YIFU’S RESPONSES TO THE RFA, SI, AND RPD WERE UNTIMELY SERVED SUCH THAT YIFU’S OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN WAIVED.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE REQUESTS WERE SERVED. (CODE CIV. PROC., §§ 2030.260, SUBD. (A), 2031.260, SUBD. (A), & 2033.250, SUBD. (A).) THE TIME TO SERVE RESPONSES IS EXTENDED BY FIVE CALENDAR DAYS IF THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS ARE SERVED BY MAIL. (CODE CIV. PROC., § 1013, SUBD. (A).) FAILING TO RESPOND WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT WAIVES OBJECTIONS TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS, INCLUDING CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION. (CODE CIV. PROC., §§ 2030.290, SUBD. (A), 2031.300, SUBD. (A), & 2033.280, SUBD. (A).)

HERE, PLAINTIFF SERVED YIFU WITH THE RFA, SI, AND RPD VIA U.S. MAIL ON JUNE 25, 2019. CONSEQUENTLY, YIFU’S RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS WERE DUE BY JULY 30, 2019, 35 DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE REQUESTS WERE SERVED. (CODE CIV. PROC., §§ 1013, SUBD. (A), 2030.260, SUBD. (A), 2031.260, SUBD. (A), & 2033.250, SUBD. (A).) YIFU FAILED TO SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH HIS RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS BY THE DEADLINE AS HE SERVED PLAINTIFF WITH HIS OBJECTION-ONLY RESPONSES ON AUGUST 15, 2019. THEREFORE, YIFU WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS. (CODE CIV. PROC., §§ 2030.290, SUBD. (A), 2031.300, SUBD. (A), & 2033.280, SUBD. (A).)

AS YIFU WAIVED ANY AND ALL OBJECTIONS TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND PROVIDED OBJECTION-ONLY RESPONSES, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE RFA, SI, AND RPD WITHOUT OBJECTIONS.

C. CONCLUSION

ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL YIFU TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE RFA, SI, AND RPD ARE GRANTED. WITHIN 20 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE ORDER ON THESE MATTERS, YIFU SHALL SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH VERIFIED, CODE-COMPLIANT FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFA NO. 11, SI NOS. 38-46, AND RPD NOS. 16-21, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS FURTHER RESPONSES.

III. REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFF ASKS THE COURT TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST YIFU AND/OR HIS COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,750 FOR EACH DISCOVERY MOTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 2033.290, SUBDIVISION (D), 2030.300, SUBDIVISION (D), AND 2031.310, SUBDIVISION (H).

THOSE STATUTES AUTHORIZE AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST ANY PARTY, PERSON, OR ATTORNEY WHO UNSUCCESSFULLY MAKES OR OPPOSES A MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, INTERROGATORIES, AND/OR REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 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., §§ 2033.290, SUBD. (D), 2030.300, SUBD. (D), & 2031.310, SUBD. (H).)

HERE, PLAINTIFF WAS SUCCESSFUL ON ITS MOTIONS, YIFU DID NOT ACT WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAKING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNJUST. THUS, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 2033.290, SUBDIVISION (D), 2030.300, SUBDIVISION (D), AND 2031.310, SUBDIVISION (H).

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL DECLARES THAT HER HOURLY RATE IS $350 AND SHE SPENT SIX HOURS PREPARING THE DISCOVERY MOTIONS. SHE FURTHER DECLARES THAT SHE SPENT ONE HOUR MEETING AND CONFERRING PRIOR TO DRAFTING THE MOTIONS. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ALSO DECLARES THAT SHE ANTICIPATES SPENDING FOUR HOURS PREPARING REPLY BRIEFS AND FOUR HOURS PREPARING FOR, TRAVELING TO AND FROM, AND ATTENDING THE HEARING ON THESE MATTERS. FINALLY, SHE DECLARES THAT SHE IS “COLLECTIVELY COUNTING THE TIME SPENT AND DIVIDING THE TOTAL PROPORTIONALLY” BETWEEN EACH MOTION BECAUSE OF “HEAVY OVERLAP OF [HER] EFFORTS SPENT ON RESEARCHING, DRAFTING THE CONTENTS OF THE MOTIONS, AND MEETING AND CONFERRING, AS WELL AS ANTICIPATING THAT THE TIME SPENT PREPARING FOR THE HEARING AND APPEARING AT THE HEARING WILL LARGELY COINCIDE ….” (CHANG DEC., ¶ 26.)

COUNSEL’S HOURLY RATE IS REASONABLE. BUT THE COURT DOES NOT AWARD SANCTIONS FOR ANTICIPATED EXPENSES. (SEE CODE CIV. PROC., § 2023.030, SUBD. (A); SEE ALSO TUCKER V. PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES (2010) 186 CAL.APP.4TH 1548, 1551, 1564 [COURT MAY NOT AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR COSTS NOT YET INCURRED].) CONSEQUENTLY, THE ANTICIPATED ATTORNEY FEES FOR PREPARING REPLY BRIEFS AND PREPARING FOR, TRAVELING TO AND FROM, AND ATTENDING THE HEARING ON THESE MATTERS ARE NOT RECOVERABLE. ADDITIONALLY, THE COURT DOES NOT AWARD SANCTIONS FOR TIME SPENT MEETING AND CONFERRING. THUS, NINE HOURS OF COUNSEL’S TIME IS NOT COMPENSABLE.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, THE COURT FINDS A REASONABLE AWARD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED IS $2,100, REPRESENTING SIX HOURS OF ATTORNEY TIME AT AN HOURLY RATE OF $350.

ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN PART IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,100. WITHIN 20 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE ORDER ON THESE MATTERS, YIFU AND/OR YIFU’S COUNSEL SHALL PAY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL $2,100.