Ryan Dewey and Phuong Huynh vs. Darko Precision, Inc

Dewey and Huynh vs. Darko Precision, Inc

CASE NO. 112CV223216

DATE: 1 August 2014

TIME: 9:00

LINE NUMBER:2

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 31 July 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 1 August 2014, the motion of Plaintiffs Ryan Dewey and Phuong Huynh (“Plaintiffs”) that Defendant Darko Precision, Inc. (“Defendant”) comply with the previous court order compelling further answers to special interrogatories (“SI”), production of documents (“RPD”) and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.[1]  Defendant Darko filed formal opposition to the motion.

I.  Statement of Facts

This is a “wage and hour” employment case alleging violations of the Labor Code.  Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to provide meal breaks, rest breaks and overtime pay.

II.  Discovery Dispute

On April 17, 2014, this court ordered Defendant to serve verified, code compliant further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 11 without objections within twenty calendar days of the filing of the written order.

III.  Analysis

A.  Special Interrogatory No. 11

The answers to an interrogatory must be responsive to the question. (1969) Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty, 272 Cal. App. 2d 499, 503.

In its original form, SI No. 11 states, “Identify all person by setting forth their names and addresses that have knowledge of the facts set forth in [your] answer to Interrogatory No. 10.”  Defendant argues that this SI requires a rephrasing of the question to include SI No’s 9 and 10.  Defendant’s translation of the SI becomes thus:

Identify all persons by setting forth their names and addresses that have knowledge of the facts that Defendant contends is provided a second rest break …

Defendant then focuses on the one word “contends” and claims it is answering the exact question posed.  While Defendant may be answering the question it asked itself, Defendant is being nonresponsive to Plaintiff’s question.  Further, Defendant’s claim it is providing a much broader answer than what SI No. 11 asks for is not only irrelevant but untrue. The fact that Defendant has severely curtailed the parties previously identified from several categories down to two potential witnesses demonstrates Defendant’s question is not a broad interpretation but rather a narrowing of the question actually submitted.

Defendant is ordered to answer SI No. 11 as submitted by Plaintiff.

B.  Request for Production of Documents No. 11

Similar to justify its rewriting of SI No. 11, Defendant asserts that it is unclear in its understanding of the word “release” used in the RPD No. 11 which requests, “Any releases obtained by defendant from any employee employed by defendant as a machinist during the period of [sic] April 26, 2009 to April 23, 2012 releasing any claim under Labor Code 226.7.”

As Defendant acknowledges, this objection was raised and overruled in court. The term release is not a vague and ambiguous term such that it needs a special definition.  Rather than following the court order Defendant took it upon itself to define the word “release” consulting several dictionaries until it found a definition that suited its purposes.  Demonstrated by Defendant’s own actions that it had to consult several outside resources, Defendant’s definition of the term “release” is a narrow definition and goes against what Defendant understood the term to mean during the April hearing.

Defendant is ordered to produce the documents requested in RPD No. 11.

C.  Request for Monetary Sanctions

Both Defendant and Plaintiff make requests for monetary sanctions.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states:  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”  See Rule of Court 2.30.

The court shall impose sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to demands for production, unless it finds that party acted with “substantial justification” or other circumstances render sanctions “unjust” California Code of Civil Procedures § 2031.300 (c)

The imposition of sanctions in this case would be just. The April 17, 2014 Court Order is clear that Defendant was to provide further answers to special interrogatories and production of documents within 20 days.  Defendant did not comply with that order.  Plaintiffs have prevailed on the motion.

Furthermore, 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. Rule of Court 3.1348 (a)

Plaintiffs’ request is code compliant.  The court will award three and a half hours of attorney time plus the filing fees for the motion, or the sum of $1140.00.  Plaintiffs also seek sanctions for time possibly spent arguing the motion. The Court does not grant speculative sanctions.  Sanctions should be awarded only for expenses actually incurred.  (See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.)  If Plaintiff does orally argue before the Court, Plaintiff may bring up the issue of further sanctions at that time.

Defendant is to pay the sum of $1140 to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of the date of the filing of this order.

 

 

 

 

 

IV.  Order

Accordingly, the motion of Plaintiffs Dewey and Huynh for motion that Defendant Darko Precision, Inc. comply with the previous court order compelling further answers to special interrogatories, production of documents is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to submit code compliant and produce documents without objections within 20 days of the date of the mailing of this Order.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  Defendant is to pay the sum of $1140 to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of the date of the filing of this order.



[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x