Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22AVCV00191, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22AVCV00191    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motions Filed: 10/19/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Dean Marsh and Angela Marsh (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Eduardo Casique Jimenez (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s responses to the following discovery requests:

·         Demands for Production, Set Four

·         Form Interrogatories, Set Two

·         Requests for Admission, Set One

Plaintiffs further request that the Court order monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel in the combined amount of $3,150.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiffs’ Demands for Production, Set Four, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two within 10 days. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel in the amount of $750.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiffs allege that on 9/30/20, Defendant caused an automobile collision between his Ford vehicle and plaintiff Dean Marsh’s Honda vehicle, thereby injuring Dean. (Compl. ¶¶ 12–15.) Plaintiffs further allege that now-defaulted defendant Juan Carlo Aguilar negligently entrusted the Ford vehicle to Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶ 22–31.) Plaintiff Angela Marsh brings loss of consortium claims against Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 32–35.)

On 3/22/22, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Negligence (against Defendant); (2) Negligent Entrustment (against Aguilar); and (3) Loss of Consortium. On 8/17/22, default was entered against Aguilar. On 12/8/22, Defendant filed his Answer. On 12/13/22, Defendant filed an amended Answer.

On 7/27/23, Plaintiffs served the subject discovery requests on Defendant. On 10/19/23, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel. No opposition has been filed to date. On 12/22/23, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-oppositions.

ANALYSIS

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Plaintiffs electronically served the subject discovery requests on Defendant on 7/27/23, the last day for Defendant to respond was 8/29/23. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) On 8/29/23, Plaintiffs granted Defendant a ten-day extension to provide code-compliant responses to the subject discovery requests. (Ex. 2 to Pls.’ Mot.) To date, Defendant has not provided responses to the requests. (Decl. of Misak Chanchikyan ¶ 3.) The Court notes that Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motions to compel Defendant to provide responses to the subject discovery requests.

//

//

//

//

Sanctions 

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Additionally, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiffs request $1,050.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed on Defendant and/or his counsel per each of the three motions to compel, totaling $3,150.00. This amount includes (1) one hour of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s time spent on preparing each motion; and (2) one hour of counsel’s time spent preparing for and attending the hearings on the instant motions, at counsel’s hourly rate of $350.00 per hour. (Chanchikyan Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.) The Court notes that Plaintiffs appear to have miscalculated the total sum requested, which should be $700.00 per motion.

In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiffs sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel in the total amount of $750.00. 

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed motions are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiffs’ Demands for Production, Set Four, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two within 10 days. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel in the amount of $750.00.