Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV33548, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33548    Hearing Date: November 30, 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

            On September 10, 2021, Plaintiff Kym Whitley (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Super Garden Centers, Inc. and Does 1 to 50 for premises liability related to a trip and fall.

            Defendant Super Garden Centers, Inc. (Defendant) moves for orders compelling a physical inspection of Plaintiff’s shoes, responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production Set One and Two, and Supplemental Request for Production, Set One. 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.)

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.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), on motion, for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to a party to propound an additional number of supplemental interrogatories.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.070(b), (c).)

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).) Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.010(c), any tangible thing may be inspected.

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

Defendant asserts that on May 8, 2023, Defendant served a request for physical inspection of Plaintiff’s shoes. (Inouye Dec. ¶ 4.) On June 2, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One. (Id. ¶ 5.) On January 24, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One and Supplemental Requests for Production, Set One. (Id. ¶ 6.) On January 31, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production, Set Two. (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has provided unverified responses to all discovery requests. Defendant has not provided any of the responses for the Court’s review; however, Plaintiff has also failed to file any opposition. Accordingly, the Court grants the motions to compel.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,620 (8 hours of attorney time plus the $60 filing fee). As an initial matter, the Court notes that each motion to compel is a separate motion, for which a separate filing fee is required. Counsel is admonished to comply with the court rules in the future. Moreover, the amount requested is excessive in light of the type of motion and the lack of an opposition. Accordingly, the Court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $255 (1 hour of attorney time plus the filing fee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant Super Garden Centers, Inc.’s motions for orders compelling a physical inspection of Plaintiff’s shoes, responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production Set One and Two, and Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses and produce the shoes for inspection within 30 days.

Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, shall pay $255 in monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant within 30 days.

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