Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 23CHCV01713, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

FEBRUARY 25, 2025

(Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV01713

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant All State Autobody (“Responding Defendant”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Responding Defendant’s verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions Plaintiff further requests monetary sanctions against Responding Defendant and its counsel in the combined amount of $2,370.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted. Responding Defendant is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Responding Defendant in the amount of $600.00.

This is premises liability action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 9/28/22, she was walking on a public walkway located at 1712 1st Street, San Fernando, CA 91340, “when she fell into a utility box with a broken and unsecured concrete cover at the Subject Location, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground and sustain bodily injuries.” (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) “The Subject Location is owned, operated, and maintained by Defendants.” (Id. at ¶ 6.)

On 6/13/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against the City of San Fernando and County of Los Angeles a sole cause of action for Premises Liability. On 10/19/23 and 10/20/23, Defendants filed their answers. On 10/20/23, the City filed a cross-complaint against the County and unnamed Does.

On 12/14/23 and 1/26/24, the County was respectively dismissed from the cross-complaint and the complaint. On 2/27/24, the City named Carlos Alvarez and Responding Defendant as previously unnamed Doe defendants 1 and 2 to the cross-complaint. On 10/10/24, Plaintiff named Alvarez and Responding Defendant as previously unnamed Doe defendants 1 and 2 to the complaint.

On 8/8/24, Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on Responding Defendant. (Decl. of Albert A. Villaneda ¶ 3.) On 10/4/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Responding Defendant’s responses thereto. No oppositions have been filed to date.

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).)

Here, as Plaintiff electronically served her first set of discovery requests on Responding Defendant on 8/8/24, the last day for Responding Defendant to respond was 9/10/24. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Despite having been granted one extension to respond, Responding Defendant has not provided responses to the subject discovery requests to date. (Villaneda Decl. ¶ 5.) As such, Responding Defendant has waived any objections to the discovery requests.

The Court notes that Responding Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motions to compel Responding Defendant’s objection-free responses to the subject discovery requests.

“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 [or RFPs], 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); 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff requests a total of $2,370.00 in monetary sanctions against Responding Defendant. This amount includes (1) 3 hours of Plaintiff’s attorney’s time spent preparing the motions; and (2) an anticipated 2.25 hours preparing replies and appearing at the hearings, at counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00 per hour. (Villaneda Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover $65.00 in filing fees per motion. (Ibid.) In granting the instant unopposed motions, the Court finds it reasonable to impose $600.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant.

The unopposed motions are granted. Responding Defendant is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Responding Defendant in the amount of $600.00