MOTION TO COMPEL LE PAON RESTAURANT TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION-SET TWO, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $510 BY ROSA ORNELAS
GM’s opposition claims it “already paid” Plaintiff $817.75 in costs on “January 5, 2026.” (Def.’s Opp. 12:20–21.) This assertion is contradicted by the record. As of May 11, 2026, GM has not paid Plaintiff’s costs and expenses in the amount of $3,394.47, as reflected in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs. (Demery Suppl. Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 12.) Thus, the Court awards costs in the full amount of $3,394.47.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL LE PAON RESTAURANT TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ORNELAS VS LE PAON CVPS2500121 PRODUCTION-SET TWO, WITHOUT RESTAURANT LLC OBJECTIONS, AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $510 BY ROSA ORNELAS Tentative Ruling: Granted in part.
Granted as to sanctions in the amount of $510.00 payable by Defendant to Plaintiff within 30 days of this order becoming final. The motion is otherwise moot.
Moving party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
Plaintiff Rosa Ornelas brings this FEHA, and wage and hour action against her former employer, Defendant Le Paon Restaurant and its owners, Defendants Antoine Babia and Eddie Babai. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Eddie Babai would make sexual and inappropriate comments about her appearance, proposing dates and promising to support her. When Plaintiff rejected his advances, he grew hostile and began demeaning her, criticizing her for speaking Spanish, and made disparaging comments regarding her Mexican heritage.
Defendant Eddie Babai also physically assaulted and battered her on several occasions. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Antoine Babai who took no action. Instead, Defendant Antoin Babai also engaged in sexual harassing conduct towards Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff resigned in March 2023. The complaint, filed 1/2/25, asserts: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) hostile work environment; (3) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (5) discrimination; (6) retaliation; (7) retaliation for exercise of protected rights; (8) Bane Civil Rights Act violation; (9) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (10) failure to pay wages; (11) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (12) unfair competition; and (13) waiting time penalties.
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide responses to requests for production. Plaintiff served discovery on 1/5/26 and has yet to receive responses. Plaintiff also requests sanctions of $510 against Defendant and its counsel.
In opposition, Defendant contends it has now served responses without objections. Counsel asserts that due to scheduling/calendaring errors, Defendant did not timely respond.
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?”
In reply, Plaintiff contends the responses are not code-compliant as they do not state whether production is allowed in whole or in part, or when Defendant states it is unable to comply, it does not state why. Defendant also apparently filed social security numbers of third parties.
Motion to Compel Further Response(s)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (Id. at § 2031.300(a).) The motion is moot. Defendant has served responses. If Plaintiff is unsatisfied with the responses, she can meet and confer and file a motion to compel further responses if necessary.
Sanctions
For requests for production, section 2031.300(c) provide that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response ... 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.” The court may award sanctions even though the requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1348(a).)
Here, sanctions are appropriate as Defendant’s counsel has accepted responsibility for the delay. The court grants sanctions in the amount of $510.
Protection of Privacy
The court notes defense counsel appears to have violated California Rule of Court, rule 1.201 for including documents containing social security numbers of Plaintiff and third parties. Counsel also improperly included pay stubs with personal identifying information, which are also violation of privacy. The court orders the court clerk to strike and remove Exhibits 33, 38-42 from the opposition filed 5/5/26 from the court record. Defense counsel is ordered to not violate this rule again.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LOW VS PGA WEST FAIRWAYS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NON- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CVPS2500640 PROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT BY COMMON INTEREST PATRICIA LOW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: Granted.
Plaintiff granted leave to file what will be deemed “First Amended Complaint” proposed as “Supplemental Complaint” within 5 days of this order becoming final.
Moving party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.