Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV23232, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV23232    Hearing Date: August 11, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

Plaintiff Emmilene Berrelleza (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Linda Jbid Huverserian (“Defendant”) to Form Interrogatories, set two. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,260.  Defendant has filed an opposition. Plaintiff has filed her reply.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 requires that each answer to an interrogatory must be as “complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)  Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that an answer is “evasive or incomplete” or that an objection is “without merit or too general.”

Here, Plaintiff served her Form Interrogatories, set two, on Defendant on September 9, 2022. (Farahi Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) After granting an extension of time to response, Defendant’s responses were due by November 11, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. B.) However, no responses were provided by this deadline. Consequently, Plaintiff, through counsel, attempted to meet and confer with defendant regarding the missing discovery responses and unilaterally provided a further extension of time to provide responses without objections by January 6, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. C.) Despite this additional extension, Defendant failed to provide responses, which necessitated the filing of the instant motion.

In opposition, Defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied as moot because discovery responses without objections relating to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, set two, were served on July 31, 2023. (Fraser Decl. 1, Exh. A.) However, upon review of this document, it expressly states that a verification statement is forthcoming, and as a result, Defendant’s belated responses are not Code-compliant. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [reasoning that unverified responses are “tantamount to no responses at all.”]) Therefore, the instant motion is not moot because verified responses have not been provided. Accordingly, the instant motion to compel is granted.

Plaintiff further requests monetary sanctions in connection with this motion against Defendant and her counsel of record in the amount of $1,260.00. Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he spent three hours preparing the instant motion at a legal rate of $400 per hour and incurred the cost of the motion filing fee of $60. (Farahi Decl. ¶ 7.) Under the circumstances, sanctions are warranted because of Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process by failing to provide timely discovery responses. Defendant’s counsel’s declaration provides no information in opposition to the sanctions request. Nevertheless, the amount in monetary sanctions is excessive when considering the instant motion concerns a straightforward discovery issue. Thus, a reduction in the requested monetary sanctions is necessary. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $660, consisting of 1.5 hours expended at $400 per hour and inclusive of the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, set two, per Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300, and orders Defendant to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

The Court further grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $660. Defendant is ordered tender payment to Plaintiff’s counsel of record within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.