Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV13903, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13903    Hearing Date: March 5, 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

BACKGROUND

            Defendant Justin Vonhecht (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiffs Ingrid Finicle and Alfred Profeet’s (Plaintiffs) responses to Requests for Production, Set One. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.  

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

Defendant asserts that on May 4, 2023, he served Requests for Production, Set One, on Plaintiffs. (Bell Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Defendant granted a three-week extension on June 21, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that responses would be sent November 16, 2023. (Id. ¶ 7.) Since then, no responses have been received. (Id. ¶ 10.) Therefore, since responses have not been served, the motions to compel are granted.  

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for $1,680, for each of the two motions. This amount represents an hourly rate of $210. The Court finds sanctions are warranted since Plaintiffs have not responded. However, given the type of motion, the lack of an opposition, and the fact counsel can appear remotely at the hearing, the Court finds this amount is excessive and reduces it to $315 as to each plaintiff (1.5 hours of attorney time).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Ingrid Finicle and Alfred Profeet shall serve properly verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production, Set One, within 30 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Ingrid Finicle and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $315. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Alfred Profeet and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $315. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendant to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.