DAVIS DIANE VS CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02187    Hearing Date: March 11, 2021    Dept: 26

Davis v. California Chicken Café LP, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.290, 2030.300, 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:   

Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Requests for Admission, Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Requests for Production; Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE REQUEST COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR THE SAME. SANCTIONS OF $810.00 ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO BE PAID TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE TO ADDRESS SANCTIONS AS TO THE AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND AMENDED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, DEFENDANT IS TO PAY TWO (2) ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE REMAINDER OF THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff Diane Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. (erroneously sued as California Chicken Café, LP) for discrimination on the basis of disability. A First Amended Complaint was filed on April 28, 2020 and Defendant answered on July 10, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Requests for Admission, Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Requests for Production; and Request For Sanctions on October 30, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 26, 2021 and Defendant replied on March 4, 2021.

Discussion

Initially, the Court addresses the fact that Defendant has filed a single discovery motion to compel further responses under three different discovery statutes with respect to three separate sets of discovery. Yet Defendant has paid only a single filing fee. Filing the motions as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Furthermore, it allows the party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Payment of motion fees is a condition precedent to the filing of the particular motion and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Defendant’s motion, therefore, cannot be heard in full until all three filing fees are paid.

Accordingly, the Court will only address the Motion with respect to the Amended Requests for Admission.

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) Following service of initial Requests for Admissions and a meet and confer by the parties, Plaintiff withdrew the initial Requests and served Amended Requests for Admission on Defendant on September 1, 2020. (Motion, Link Decl., ¶¶3, 5, 6, 9-13 and Exh. 9.) Plaintiff served responses to the Amended Requests on October 7, 2020. (Id. at Exh. 11.) Defendant timely filed the instant Motion on October 30, 2020.

Also, the motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).) Defendant filed a declaration demonstrating that the parties engaged in extensive meet and confer after service of the initial responses and continuing after service of the Amended Requests for Admission. (Motion, Link Decl., ¶¶3-13.) No supplemental responses were served prior to the filing of the Motion. (Id. at ¶19 and Exh. 14.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).) The Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 10/30/20.)

On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff served further responses to the Amended Requests for Admission. (Opp., Davidson Decl., ¶13 and Exh. 1.) Both parties agree that the Motion is moot as to the request for further responses but disagree as to whether sanctions should be awarded. (Opp., Davidson Decl., ¶13; Reply, p. 2:4-5.)

The parties’ attorneys had agreed that the initial Requests for Admission would be re-drafted so that they were separately numbered, did not contain sub-parts and were otherwise code-compliant. (Motion, Link Decl., Exh. 7.) In exchange, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to withdraw the objections of vague and ambiguous as to the phrases “accurately shows” and “visited the property.” (Ibid.) The Amended Requests for Admission were re-drafted to separately seek admissions for the four different dates of Plaintiff’s visits to Defendant’s property. (Id. at Exhs. 1 and 8.) Plaintiff again objected to the Amended Requests, using the same objections that should have been withdrawn (vague, ambiguous, use of subparts). (Id. at Exh. 11.) Plaintiff also added a meritless objection that the Requests seek a legal conclusion, which is permitted under the propounding statute. (Id. at Exh. 11; Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) Based on the foregoing and Plaintiff’s subsequent service of further responses after this Motion was filed, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections to the Amended Requests were improper. Sanctions are appropriately sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d).) Using a lodestar calculation, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $810.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $250.00 per hour. (Motion, Link Decl., ¶20.)

Conclusion

Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Requests for Admission, Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Requests for Production; Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE REQUEST COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR THE SAME. SANCTIONS OF $810.00 ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO BE PAID TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE TO ADDRESS SANCTIONS AS TO THE AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND AMENDED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, DEFENDANT IS TO PAY TWO (2) ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE REMAINDER OF THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.