Case Number: BC667135 Hearing Date: June 29, 2018 Dept: 50
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 50
GENNIFER ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ATKINS AND ATKINS SERVICE, INC., et al.
Defendants.
Case No.:
BC 667135
Hearing Date:
June 29, 2018
Hearing Time:
8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION OF DEFENDANT ATKIN & ATKIN TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,910.00
Background
Plaintiff Gennifer Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 28, 2017 against Defendants Atkins and Atkins Services, Inc.[1] (“AASI”), Kevin Atkins, and Susan Atkins (collectively, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges wage and hour violations as well as a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
AASI brings this motion to compel further responses by Plaintiff to Special Interrogatories (Set One). However, as noted in Plaintiff’s opposition, she has since served further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), thereby mooting the instant motion. AASI in its reply acknowledges that further responses have been provided but proceeds with the request for sanctions portion of its motion.
Discussion
Plaintiff opposes the request for sanctions on the basis that AASI failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the instant motion. Counsel for both parties had agreed that Plaintiff would provide further responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One) by December 1, 2017. (Rosenfield Decl., p. 6: 16-21.) However, on December 1, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff requested an extension to December 4, 2017 as the result of a family medical emergency. (Caraway-Howard Decl., ¶ 13.) Another extension to December 11, 2017 was also granted. (Rosenfield Decl., Ex. F.) However, counsel for AASI would not grant Plaintiff an extension of time to bring her own motions to compel. (Caraway-Howard Decl., ¶¶ 14-16.) Although counsel for Plaintiff did not request any more extensions, she did inform counsel for AASI that she would not be providing responses until January 3, 2018. (Caraway-Howard Decl., ¶ 17.) On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff served further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Caraway-Howard Decl., ¶ 22.) However, the instant motion was filed on January 23, 2018.
Although Plaintiff contends that AASI did not engage in good faith meet and confer efforts prior to filing the instant motion, the Court concludes otherwise. Based on the correspondence attached to both the moving and opposing papers, and based on the information contained in both declarations, the Court finds that a good faith meet and confer did take place, that Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses, that AASI agreed to all requested extensions, and that Plaintiff did not serve further responses until after the instant motion was filed. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification to make imposition of the sanction unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(d).)
Plaintiff argues that AASI failed to schedule an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) prior to filing the motion, or at any time after filing the motion. The Court notes that participation in an IDC is now required per the Court’s standing order. However, failure to participate in an IDC at the time the motion was filed is not grounds for denial of a discovery motion or a sanctions request.
Plaintiff also argues that the request for sanctions is defective, as the notice of motion does not contain the name of all parties and attorneys against whom sanctions are sought. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) The Court notes that although the caption of the notice of motion and motion does indicate that sanctions in the amount of $3,910 are sought against Plaintiff and her attorney Cathe Caraway-Howard, the notice itself does not. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 expressly requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought….” (Emphasis added.) It does not state that the identification may be “on the caption.” The Court finds that AASI failed to meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040, and therefore, no sanctions may be awarded.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, AASI’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied as moot. AASI’s request for sanctions is denied.
AASI is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.
DATED: June 29, 2018 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
[1] The Court notes that the motion contains a number of errors with naming of the proper defendant in a number of different ways. First, the caption itself indicates that defendant “Atkin & Atkin” is bringing the motion. Next, the attorney caption indicates that counsel represents, inter alia, defendants “Atkins and Atkins, Inc.” The notice of motion indicates that unidentified “Defendants” bring this motion to compel responses to interrogatories by defendant “Atkin and Atkins Services.” The Court notes that Plaintiff objects to the motion procedurally on this basis. However, the Court infers based on the circumstances that defendant Atkins and Atkins Services, Inc. is the entity bringing the instant motion.