EMA BELL VS. MICHAELS STORES, INC. ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 03, 2025, line 4, PLAINTIFF EMA BELL'S Motion To Compel Discovery Responses (TENTATIVE RULING PART 1 SEE PART 2)

Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses from defendants Michaels Stores Inc. and Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. is denied. The court awards sanctions of $750 payable by Plaintiff to Defendants.

Plaintiff served the discovery on April 8, 2024. The parties reached a settlement. Also on April 8, Plaintiff wrote on the email thread with the discovery: "Counsel - please disregard, this case is settled, Kyle. Please send them a CJ." (Tarantino Dec. Ex. A.) The settlement did not come to pass. Plaintiff demanded responses to the discovery in an email sent April 7, 2025 and filed a motion to compel responses on April 25, 2025.

An extension of time to respond to discovery must be "confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response." (CCP 2030.270(b) [interrogatories]; see also CCP 2031.270(b) [analogous provision for inspection demands].)

The court concludes that the best interpretation of Plaintiff's April 8, 2024 email was that it withdrew the discovery. The email did not qualify as an extension because it did not specify the date for a response, nor is it most naturally read as an extension. Nor was the withdrawal expressly conditioned on completing a settlement. Having withdrawn the discovery, Plaintiff could not later demand a response within two weeks on penalty of waiving objections. (Plaintiff could re-serve it, or arguably could un-withdraw it, but either act would trigger 30 days for Defendants to respond.)

CCP 2030.290(c) provides 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 to interrogatories . . . 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." A similar provision exists for inspection demands. (Id. 2031.300(c).)

The court does not find Plaintiff's position to have substantial justification but reduces the sanctions amount to reflect a more reasonable recovery for the cost of opposing this motion. Plaintiff shall pay $750 to Defendants within 30 days of entry of this order. (END OF TENTATIVE RULING PART 1, SEE PART 2) = (302/CVA) | |