Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV18996, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18996    Hearing Date: February 2, 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 City of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff Sharon Rose Faley-Harvey’s (Plaintiff) responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demand for Production

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).)

Supplemental Demand for Production

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050 provides:

“(b) A party may propound a supplemental demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and, subject to the time limits on discovery proceedings and motions provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010), once after the initial setting of a trial date.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.050(b).)

Interrogatories

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); 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).)

Supplemental Interrogatories

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070 provides:

            “(b) A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and, subject to the time limits on discovery proceedings and motions provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010), once after the initial setting of a trial date.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.070(b).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts that on May 10, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. (McGuire Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) No responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 6.) Therefore, because responses have not been served, the motions to compel are granted.

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $750 for each motion representing a $250 hourly rate. The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted but finds the amount to be excessive in light of the type of motion at issue and the lack of an opposition. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $750 (1.5 hours of attorney time for each motion).¿¿ 

CONCLUSION

            The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. Plaintiffs shall serve verified responses, without objection, within 15 days.

            Plaintiff Sharon Rose Faley-Harvey and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, shall pay monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $750.00 to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

            Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.