Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV26481, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26481    Hearing Date: October 19, 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.  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

BACKGROUND

            Defendant SF Markets, LLC (Defendant), moves to Compel Plaintiff Idalia Lemus’ (Plaintiff) Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Plaintiff does not oppose.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant represents that it served a Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff on May 15, 2023. (Safarian Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on June 16, 2023, but she failed to respond by the deadline. Although not required, Defendant sent a letter on July 14, 2023 to Plaintiff requesting a discovery response. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Plaintiff did not respond to the letter and did not file an opposition to this motion. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel.  

Defendant also requests $1,185.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, representing an hourly rate of $250.00 for 1.5 hours preparing this motion, 1.5 hours to prepare a reply, and 1.5 hours appearing remotely for the hearing. This amount also includes the $60.00 filing fee for this motion. The Court finds sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the type of motion at issue, the fact no opposition was filed, and because Defendant will appear remotely. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $435.00 (1.5 hours of attorney time to file and appear at hearing, plus the $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide responses, without objection, within 30 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record in the reduced amount of $435. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.

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.  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

BACKGROUND

            Defendant SF Markets, LLC (Defendant), moves to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Plaintiff does not oppose.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant represents that it served Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Plaintiff on May 15, 2023. (Safarian Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on June 16, 2023, but she failed to respond by the deadline. Although not required, Defendant sent a letter on July 14, 2023 to Plaintiff requesting a discovery response. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Plaintiff did not respond to the letter and did not file an opposition to this motion. However, in the Notice of Motion, Defendant requests relief based on Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 et seq., which does not apply to Interrogatories. A Notice of Motion must state the grounds upon which it will be made. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 1010.) While a court may generally only consider the grounds stated in the notice of motion, “[a]n omission in the notice may be overlooked if the supporting papers make clear the grounds for the relief sought.” (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125.)  Here, because Defendant’s supporting papers asserted section 2030.290 and sought to compel responses to interrogatories, the Court chooses to overlook the omission in the Notice of Motion. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel. 

Defendant also requests $1,185.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, representing an hourly rate of $250.00 for 1.5 hours preparing this motion, 1.5 hours to prepare a reply, and 1.5 hours appearing remotely for the hearing. This amount also includes the $60.00 filing fee for this motion. The Court finds sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the type of motion at issue, the fact no opposition was filed, and because Defendant will appear remotely. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $435.00 (1.5 hours of attorney time to file and appear at hearing, plus the $60 filing fee).  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide responses, without objection, within 30 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record in the reduced amount of $435. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.