Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV24571, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24571    Hearing Date: November 28, 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 Single Room Occupancy Housing Corp. (Defendant) moves to Compel Plaintiff Richard Jerome Hutchins’ (Plaintiff) Response to Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three. 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.)

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).)

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).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant asserts that it served Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three on Plaintiff on April 5, 2023. (Berke Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The responses were due on June 16, 2023 after Defendant agreed to extensions. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has not responded and has not filed an opposition to this motion. Therefore, the motions to compel are granted.  

Defendant requests $1,072.50 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record for each separate motion, representing an hourly rate of $225.00 and the $60.00 filing fee. The Court finds sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the type and similarity of the motions at issue and the fact no opposition was filed. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,080 (4 hours of attorney time to file and appear at the hearing, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion).      

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objections within 30 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,080. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

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