Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV49382, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV49382 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 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
DEPT: |
32 |
HEARING DATE: |
March
20, 2024 |
CASE NUMBER: |
20STCV49382 |
MOTIONS: |
Compel
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One |
Cross Defendant Tony Lam |
|
OPPOSING PARTY: |
None |
BACKGROUND
Cross Defendant Tony Lam (“Cross
Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Curtis Carter’s (“Plaintiff”) responses
to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Cross Defendant also seeks monetary
sanctions. No opposition has been filed.
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
Cross Defendant asserts that on May 25, 2023, Cross Defendant served Form
Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff. (Arbucci Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The
responses were due June 27, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.) As of the date of filing
this motion, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 5.) Therefore,
because Plaintiff does not oppose and responses have not been served, the
motion to compel is granted.
Cross Defendant requests sanctions for
$360 against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, representing an hourly rate
of $150 and the $60 filing fee. The Court finds the amount requested to be
reasonable.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Accordingly, Cross Defendant’s Motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Curtis
Carter shall
serve properly verified responses, without objections, to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, within 14 days.
The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $360.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Cross Defendant
within 30 days of the date of this order.
Cross Defendant
to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.