Motion_to_compel_answers_to_request_for_admissionsMotionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 4, 2019Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 05/26/2020 10:55:00 PM. 30-2014-01102654-CU-OE-CXC - ROA #73 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Sarah Loose, Deputy Qlerk. 1 |[Justin Lo (SBN: 280102) Justin@WorkLawyers.com 2 || WORK LAWYERS, PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 202. 3 || Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (424) 355-8335 * || Facsimile: (424) 355-8335 5 6 |[Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERTO SILVA, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, { SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 9 ROBERTO SILVA, as an individual and on | Case No.: 30-2019-01102654-CU-OE-CXC 10 ||behalf of all similarly situated employees, PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S NOTICE 11 Plaintiff OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS 12 FOR ADMISSIONS SET ONE; AND i REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE 13 AMOUNT OF $22,935.00; MEMORANDUM APEX SYSTEMS LLC., a corporation doing | OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN business in California; and DOES 1 through |SUPPORT THEREOF 15 |[90, inclusive, 14 [Filed concurrently with Memorandum of Points 16 Defendant. and Authorities; Declaration of Justin Lo and [Proposed] Order] 17 Assigned for All Purposes to: 18 Hon. William Claster 1 Date: BD 8/7/2020 5L 20 Time: BX 9: 00AM SL Dept.: CX104 21 Complaint Filed: October 4, 2019 22 Trial Date: None Yet Set 23 24 [| TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a date and time to be determined in Department 26 [| “CX104” of the above-entitled court located at the Superior Court of California, County of 27 || Orange, 751 W. Santa Ana, California 92701, Plaintiff, Roberto Silva (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), 28 || will and hereby does move for the Court to issue an order compelling Defendant Apex Systems -1- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LLC., a corporation doing business in California (“Defendant”), to provide a further response to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions (Set One), within five (5) days of the date of the hearing on this motion. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order Defendants and its counsel of record SUGG & PARACUELLOS LLP to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $22,935.00 for their refusal to comply with legitimate discovery requests, thus necessitating the instant motion. This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.010, 2023.020, 2023.030, and 2030.300, upon the grounds that Defendants have failed to provide a sufficient response to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission (Set One) in compliance with the Civil Discovery Act. Further, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $22,935.00 for Defendants unjustifiable and bad faith failure to provide the requested discovery and meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, which necessitated the filing of this Motion. This motion is made after numerous reasonable and good faith efforts by Plaintiff’s Counsel to resolve the issues set forth in this motion. This motion is made and based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Separate Statement of Item in Dispute filed concurrently herewith, the attached Declaration of Justin Lo, as well as upon all records and papers on file in this action and such other and further oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. Dated: May 26, 2020 Work Lawyers, PC Justin Lo Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Roberto Silva and similarly aggrieved employees 2- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Roberto Silva (hereinafter "Plaintiff") served his Request for Admission (“RFA(s)”), (Set One) on Defendants, Apex Systems LLC INC., a corporation doing business in California on February 26, 2020. Defendants has had adequate time to provide meaningful responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admission (Set One) and complete its investigation into this matter. However, Defendants and its counsel unduly delayed the action by responding with boilerplate objections with the intention of unduly delaying providing meaningful responses. The interrogatories propounded are aimed to uncover evidence, witnesses and the extent of any damages against Plaintiff Roberto Silva and Aggrieved Employees of Defendant. These interrogatories are directed toward uncovering defenses to Plaintiff’s claims are relevant, and likely to lead to evidence supporting Plaintiff’s assertions that Defendants improperly compensates, has failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods and fails to reimburse it’s employees for necessary expenses under California law, and that a PAGA action is appropriate in this case. (See Declaration of Justin Lo ("Lo Decl.") 10.) Without the requested information, Plaintiff is unable to effectively take depositions, interview aggrieved employees or evaluate the strength of his claims. Defendants have obstructed Plaintiff’s right to discovery by providing boilerplate objections simply because there are other wage and hour lawsuits pending against Defendants. (See Lo Decl., (10) Defendants’ failure to provide a straightforward and complete response to the discovery identified above has caused hardship to Plaintiff as the interrogatories are essential for Plaintiff as it seeks information regarding Defendants’ evidentiary support for its affirmative Defenses. II. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of reasonably detailed allegations supporting each of his four (4) distinct causes of action for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide Be NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses and violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). On February 26, 2020, Plaintiffs served his Request for Admission on Defendants seeking, among other things, documents relating to the identities of aggrieved employees.(See Lo Decl. 3, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff needs this discovery from Defendants in order to proceed to trial. However, Defendant is not providing the requested documents and information and is attempting to delay production of the required documents. As of the filing of this motion, no Order to Coordinate or Stay Order has been issued by the Court. (Lo Decl., {10.) Prior to filing this motion, e Meet and Confer Letter regarding further responses for the first set of Requests for Production, Form Interrogatories (General), Form Interrogatories (Employment), Request for Admission and Request for Admission was emailed by Plaintiff’s Co-counsel’s office to Ms. Sugg on May 11, 2020. (Lo Decl., {5.) e¢ On May 11, 2020, Counsel for Defendant’s indicated the Court’s October 30, 2019 Case Management Conference Order stayed discovery until after the Initial Case Management Conference was held. Exhibit 4 e On May 19, 2020, Mr. Mahoney clarified that the Initial Case Management Conference occurred on February 5, 2020 with Mr. Alexander Perez in attendance on behalf of Plaintiffs. A copy of the Initial Case Management Conference is attached as Exhibit 5. e Despite the Initial Case Management Conference occurring and discovery being permitted to proceed, Defendants refuse to supplement their responses. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted multiple times to meet and confer to resolve the discovery dispute by giving Defendants an opportunity to supplement its response. Defendants have not provided sufficient verified further responses, thereby requiring Plaintiff to seek the assistance of the Court. I" I" 4- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. DISCUSSION A. Good Cause Exists for an Order Compelling Further Responses to the Request for Admission Plaintiff’s propounded Request for Admission seek information regarding the aggrieved employees and Defendants’ defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. This information is plainly relevant to, and likely to lead to evidence supporting, Plaintiff’s assertions that Defendants violates the wage and hour rights of its employees under California law, and that a PAGA action is appropriate in this case. Moreover, without the requested information, Plaintiff is unable to effectively take depositions, interview aggrieved employees or evaluate the strengths of their claims. Such information is directly relevant to allow Plaintiff to prepare for trial. Despite the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel has contacted Defendants’ counsel to inform them of their deficient responses, Defendants refused to supplement their responses. (See Lo Decl., 19.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants have acted in bad faith by not supplementing their responses and by delaying responses due to other litigation being filed against Defendants. B. A Motion to Compel is Proper Whereas Here, a Party has Failed to Provide a Complete and/or Evasive Responses to Request for Admission Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010 provides that a party is entitled to seek the discovery of “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Information that relates to a claim or defense of any party is relevant to the subject matter of the action and is subject to discovery, even though the information may be inadmissible at trial. Information relating to the contentions made by other parties, including affirmative defenses and general denials, is relevant without regard to who has the burden of proof on the issue for which the information is sought. See, Dompeling vs. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.3d 98 (1981); See also, Singer vs. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 318 (1960). Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300, a motion to compel is the proper remedy where: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A -5- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[;] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(a)(1) — (3); see also, Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1189-1190 (2004) (motion to compel proper to challenge boilerplate responses). As specifically set forth in the Separate Statement filed in support of this Motion, Defendants have provided an evasive, confusing, and/or incomplete response to Plaintiff’s propounded Request for Admission. C. Defendants’ Boilerplate Objections Are Without Merit Defendants’ responses incorporate several “general objections” and assert additional boilerplate objections (such as attorney-client privilege, work product or privilege, trade secret/proprietary information protection and violation of privacy rights of current or former employees) and baseless objections (such as coordinating the production of that information with the other pending PAGA actions.) as to Plaintiff’s propounded Request for Admission. When the discovery act was revised, the amendments included provisions, now located at CCP § 2031.210, expressly prohibiting boilerplate and general objections by requiring one to “respond . . . separately to each item or category of item” including any “objection to the particular demand for inspection” (emphasis added). Moreover, where privilege objections are desired, CCP § 2031.420 expressly requires each separate response to identify “the particular privilege invoked” and further expressly assert a “work product” objection. A motion to compel lies for general objections. (See Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 51 Cal. App.4th 1513, 1516 (sanctions for “boilerplate” objections).) Thus, a party whose separate response fails to set forth a particular ground for objection waives its right to raise that objection later. (Stadish v. Sup. Ct. (So. Calif. Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1141.) Moreover, it is axiomatic that California law squarely places the burden of establishing an objection to discovery on the party that asserts it. See e.g. Sierra Vista Hospital v. Superior Court (1967) 248 Cal. App. 2d 359 (privacy objection), Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 584, 590; State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. vs. Superior] -6- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 625, 640. As specifically set forth in the Separate Statement filed in support of this Motion, Defendants have not met its burden of establishing the validity of each of its objections as to each of the inquiries at issue. IV. AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND ITS COUNSEL IS WARRANTED California Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 requires that counsel for the moving party make a reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution of the issues prior to filing a discovery motion. As detailed above, Plaintiff's counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendants counsel regarding Defendants response to Request for Admission (Set One) in an effort to obviate any need for the Court's intervention. These attempts are set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Justin Lo and the attached exhibits. Counsel for Defendant has repeated boilerplate “objections” to meet and confer regarding discovery based upon other pending litigation against Defendants. Defendant’s refusal to submit further responses is an intentional tactic to unduly delay Plaintiff’s complaint. The California Code of Civil Procedure allows for the imposition of sanctions in a number of circumstances, including the circumstances at issue in this motion. For example, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480(f): The court shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel... for production, 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. /d. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides in pertinent part as follows: The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. ... If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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. Id. -7- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In this case, Defendants are subject to the imposition of sanctions for two reasons. First, Defendants have misused the discovery process by failing to properly respond to an authorized method of discovery, namely the relevant Request for Admission (Set One). (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Second, in the event Defendants unsuccessfully opposes this Motion, sanctions should be imposed as there is no substantial justification for any opposition and Defendants have continued to act in bad faith by providing evasive responses and unmeritorious objections to discovery. (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (h); 2025.480, subd. (f).) Consequently, the Court should impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $22,935. 00 against Defendants and its counsel for all expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees, incurred by Plaintiff in seeking to resolve this issue informally and in preparing this Motion and attending the hearing on this matter. (See Lo Decl., {{ 11.) V. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an order compelling Defendants to provide verified responses to Request for Admission (Set One) within five (5) days of the hearing of this Motion. In addition, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order Defendants and its counsel of record to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $22,395.00 DATED: May 24, 2020 Work Lawyers, PC 24 Le By: us?’ Justi Lo Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff Roberto Silva and similarly aggrieved employees -8- NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AS TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202, Torrance, California 90505. On May 26, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF ROBERTO SILVA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,935.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action as follows: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows: Wendy Sugg. Esq. Sugg & Paracuellos, LLC 19100 Von Karman A venue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA, 92612 Email: Wendy@sugglaw.com Attorney for Defendant, Apex Systems, Inc. 0 BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 0 IN PERSON: I personally served the above-mentioned documents. X BY E-MAIL: I sent the documents by e-mail to the e-mail addresses provided above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 26, 2020, at Torrance, California. J canffetté Pichardo 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
