Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00820, Date: 2024-05-02 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: 23CHCV00820    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motion Filed: 4/8/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jamie Torres (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Quinton Williams (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”); Form Interrogatories; and Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff further requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the total amount of $1,560.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $900.00.

Plaintiff 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 a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 4/4/22, she was injured by exercise equipment owned and operated by Defendant at his chiropractic office. (Compl. ¶¶ 15–30.) On 3/21/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; and (3) Professional Negligence. On 9/5/23, Defendant filed his answer.

On 10/16/23, Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests on Defendant. On 4/8/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s responses thereto. No oppositions have been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

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 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).)

Here, as Plaintiff electronically served the subject discovery requests on Defendant on 10/16/23, the last day for Defendant to respond was 11/17/23. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Plaintiff’s counsel granted Defendant’s counsel two extensions for Defendant to serve his responses, bringing the due date for the responses to 12/29/23. (Ex. 5 to Decl. Christopher J. Keane.) To date, Defendant has not provided responses to the subject discovery requests. (Keane Decl. ¶ 3.) The Court notes that Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motion 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 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).)

“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).)

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, Plaintiff requests $1,435.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant. This amount includes (1) 2 hours of Plaintiff’s attorney’s time spent preparing the motion; and (2) an anticipated 1 hour appearing at the hearing, at counsel’s hourly rate of $500.00 per hour. (Keane Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover $60.00 in filing fees. (Ibid.)

In granting the instant unopposed motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the total amount of $900.00 

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $900.00.