Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Special Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents
(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. O) May 18, 2026 LASC - Tentative Rulings Main Content --> Online Services Tentative Rulings Text-to-Speech Play Reset DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT CITLALI M. ARTEAGA, an Individual, Plaintiff, vs. SAVE PRO RESTORATION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants.)))))))))))))) CASE NO.: 25VECV04204 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF?S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. BACKGROUND This is an employment action. Plaintiff Citlali M. Arteaga (“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendant Save Pro Restoration (“Defendant”) terminated Plaintiff’s employment because of her disability and requests for accommodation, and because Plaintiff exercised her
rights under the FEHA. (See Compl., ¶ 23.) Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s responses to her Requests for Production (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). /// /// II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(a)); (2) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA (Gov't Code § 12940(m)); (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12940(n)); (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov't Code § 12940(h)); (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov't Code § 12940(k)); (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Code §§ 17200, et seq. On November 20, 2025, Defendant filed an Answer. On February 25, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. On April 16, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions. On May 5, 2026, Defendant filed its Oppositions. On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed her Replies. III. LEGAL STANDARD A. Requests for Production A party upon whom a demand for the production of documents has been made has 30 days after service of the demand to respond. (See Code Civ.
Proc. § 2031.260(a).) [1] The propounding and responding parties may agree to extend the time for response. (See
Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.270(a).) When a party fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a motion to compel response. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).) A responding party that does not provide responses waives the right to object to the demand, including objections based on privilege or work product. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) ¿ B. Interrogatories If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (See Code Civ.
Proc. § 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) IV. ANALYSIS There are two discovery Motions before the Court, which the Court will grant. The Court will address them together as they are substantially similar.
On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff propounded her Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant. (See Declaration of Pola Bernabe filed April 22, 2026 (“Bernabe Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has not received responses to her RFPs and SROGs to date despite granting an extension. (See Bernabe Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant only opposes sanctions, as discussed below. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFPs and SROGs. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion RFPs and Motion SROGs.
Defendant is ordered to serve code compliant responses without objection to Plaintiff’s RFPs and SROGs on or before June 1, 2026. V. DISCOVERY SANCTIONS “The court shall impose a monetary sanction ¿ . . . ¿ against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel ¿ . . .” responses to interrogatories or production demands, absent substantial justification or other circumstances that make imposing the sanctions unjust. ¿ (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c), § 2031.300(c).)
Plaintiff requests discovery sanctions in the amount of $1,508.75 in connection with each Motion. This total comprises
1.875 hours to prepare each Motion, 0.675 hours to prepare a reply, and 0.5 hours for the hearing on each Motion at counsel’s hourly rate of $475.00. (See Bernabe Decl., ¶¶ 22-25.) Plaintiff also incurred a $60.00 filing fee. (See id., ¶ 26.) Defendant argues the amount requested is unreasonable as the Motions are the same, that there is no justification for sanctions against counsel under Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.10, and sanctions are not warranted because the Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (See Opp. at 1-2.)
Plaintiff argues its declared hours are reasonable. Plaintiff argues Local Rule 3.10 [2] governs sanctions for noncompliance with the local court rules in Chapter 3 and expressly directs the Court to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2016.010 through 2036.050, the statutes governing discovery sanctions. The Court finds sanctions are appropriate and awards Plaintiff a total of $1,568.75 in discovery sanctions. The Court finds this total is reasonable as the Motions and Replies were routine and substantially similar.
The Court awards both filing fee costs. Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $1,568.75 in discovery sanctions on or before June 18, 2026. VI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion RFPs and Motion SROGs. Defendant is ordered to serve code compliant responses without objection to Plaintiff’s RFPs and SROGs on or before June 1, 2026. Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $1,568.75 in discovery sanctions on or before June 18, 2026 IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 18, 2026 Hon. Michael R. Amerian Judge, Superior Court [1] All statutory references are to California codes unless stated otherwise. [2] “The court may impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with the rules in this chapter, including the time standards and/or deadlines, and any court order made pursuant to the rules. Counsel are directed to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128?2016.010-2036.050, Government Code section 68608, and California Rules of Court, rule 2.30.
The sanctions may be imposed on a party and, if appropriate, on counsel for that party.” (Local Rules of Court, rule 3.10.) Case Number: 26VECV00008 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: O SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA