Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHCV00238, Date: 2024-01-08 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: 22CHCV00238    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motions Filed: 9/14/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant James Brian McGrory (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Leah Debolt (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK [SPROG motion – notice erroneously states monetary sanctions award sought as $1,635.00.]

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”); Form Interrogatories; Requests for Admission (“RFAs”); and Special Interrogatories. Defendant further requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the combined amount of $5,140.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery requests within 10 days. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,000.00.

Defendant is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is contract action in which Plaintiff is a managing member of a limited liability company renting commercial space located at 24450 Main St., Space 120, Newhall, CA 91321. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that on 6/12/20, she entered into a written construction contract with Defendant to remodel the property, and that Defendant breached the contract by failing to perform the agreed-upon services in a timely and sufficient manner. (Id. at ¶¶ 24–31.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant lacked the proper contractors’ license to lawfully perform the services. (Id. at ¶ 32.)

On 5/2/23, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff. On 9/14/23, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses thereto. No oppositions have been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff by mail on 5/2/23, the last day for Plaintiff to respond was 6/6/23. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013, subd. (a).) On 5/31/23, Defendant granted Plaintiff a two-week extension to provide responses to the subject discovery requests. (Ex. 2 to Decl. of Erica Loftis Pacheco.) On 7/7/23, Defendant provided an additional extension for Plaintiff to provide objection-free verified responses to the subject requests by 9/12/23. (Ex. 5 to Pacheco Decl.) To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Pacheco Decl ¶ 11.) The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to the subject discovery requests.

Sanctions¿ 

In granting the instant motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff and/or her counsel in the total amount of $1,000.00. 

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery requests within 10 days. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,000.00.