Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendant is represented by attorney Kevin R. Allen of the Allen Attorney Group who is involved in the conduct being sanctioned by the court. Update: It is Lawzilla’s understanding the tentative ruling became a final ruling $1560 in sanctions were issued against defendant and attorney Kevin r. Allen.

Case Number: BC678585 Hearing Date: April 04, 2018 Dept: 32

valdivia,

Plaintiff,

v.

best label company, inc. et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC678585

Hearing Date: April 4, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, numbers 1-102.

Plaintiff Maricela Valdivia (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Best Label Company (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, No. 1-102.

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production (“RFPs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).) If the moving party has shown good cause for the RFPs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup. Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98.)

Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) violation of Business and Professions Code §17200; (3) negligent hiring and retention; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s requests for production seek employment agreements, personnel policies, job performance evaluations and other documents relevant to potential Labor Code violations. These documents are clearly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. As such, there is good cause for their production. Defendant provides no justification for the objections in opposition.

Defendant contends in their opposition that the motion to compel is denied as moot because Defendant has supplemented its discovery responses on March 21, 2018. (Allen Decl. Exh A.) When a party serves supplemental responses after a motion to compel further responses has been filed, a court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances present, such as denying the motion as moot. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.) The Court, in its discretion, GRANTS the motion to compel for the above reasoning and if the supplemental responses provided are not sufficient then Plaintiff should file another motion to compel further responses pursuant to CCP §2031.310(c).

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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. (CCP § 2033.290(d).) Plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,560.00 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the motion including 6 hours for drafting, reviewing the opposition, and appearing at a rate of $250.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee incurred. Defendant has not provided substantial justification, and served the supplemental responses only after costs had been incurred by Plaintiff to move to compel further after appropriate meet and confer attempts. (Phan Decl. ¶10-15.) The Court finds the amount requested to be reasonable.

As such, the motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by filing this motion is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,560.00.