Case Number: BC678585 Hearing Date: June 18, 2018 Dept: 32

MARICELA valdivia,

Plaintiff,

v.

best label company, inc. et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC678585

Hearing Date: June 18, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s FORM INTERROGATORIES—EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE, NUMBER 216.1.

Plaintiff Maricela Valdivia (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Best Label Company (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory (Employment) No. 216.1.

If a party that has propounded interrogatories believes that the responses received are evasive or incomplete, or that an objection to the interrogatories is without merit or too general, the propounding party may bring a motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.300; see also Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190 [motion to compel proper to challenge “boilerplate” responses].) The responding party has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

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. Form Interrogatory No. 216.1 seeks information about the facts and witnesses upon which Defendant intends to rely to support its denial of Plaintiff’s allegations and its affirmative defenses.

Defendant’s original, first supplemental, and second supplemental responses consisted entirely of objections. After this motion was filed, Defendant served third supplemental responses (attached to the opposition as Exhibit A), which respond in detail to the interrogatory.

Defendant argues these supplemental responses render the instant motion moot. 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.) In reply, Plaintiff provides no argument as to the insufficiency of the response, though it asks the Court to nevertheless rule on the merits of Defendant’s objections. The Court declines to do so, given the thorough and comprehensive scope of the response.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is therefore DENIED as moot. Should Plaintiff believe the supplemental responses are insufficient, then Plaintiff should file another motion to compel further responses.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court concludes sanctions are still appropriate. Per Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a), “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” Absent substantial justification on the part of Defendant, sanctions are mandatory pursuant to CCP § 2030.300(d). The Court concludes Defendant has not provided substantial justification for the lengthy delay in providing these responses to Plaintiff. The Court notes in particular that it took Defendant four attempts to get it right, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to meet and confer regarding this issue, and only ultimately provided responses under threat of the instant motion. (Phan Decl., ¶ 6-15.) The Court therefore concludes sanctions are appropriate

Plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in support of the motion, including 5 hours for drafting the motion, reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and appearing at the hearing, all at a rate of $350.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Phan Decl. ¶ 16.)

The Court notes that as recently as February 22, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration indicating her normal hourly rate was $250. (Phan Decl. ISO Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPDs, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff provides no explanation for the $100 increase in Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate. Accordingly, the Court concludes sanctions should be calculated based on the more reasonable rate of $250/hour.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,310.00.