Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV36081, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV36081 Hearing Date: November 21, 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
| 
   DEPT:  | 
  
   32  | 
 
| 
   HEARING DATE:  | 
  
   November
  21, 2023  | 
 
| 
   CASE NUMBER:  | 
  
   21STCV36081  | 
 
| 
   MOTIONS:    | 
  
   Compel
  Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One  | 
 
| 
   Plaintiff Charles Edward Andrade  | 
  
 |
| 
   OPPOSING PARTY:  | 
  
   Unopposed  | 
 
BACKGROUND
            Plaintiff Charles Edward Andrade
(Plaintiff) moves to Compel Defendant Alexis Weng’s (Defendant) response to Request
for Production of Documents, Set One. 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
Here, Plaintiff represents that he served a Request for Production of
Documents, Set One on Defendant on June 30, 2022. (Padua Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Defendant
declined to offer any extension on December 15, 2022. (Id. ¶ 7.) Since then, no
responses have been served. Accordingly, because no responses were served, the
Court grants the motion to compel.  
Plaintiff
also requests $1,200.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant, representing
an hourly rate of $400.00 for 1 hour preparing this motion and 2 hours to review
an opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing. The Court finds
sanctions are warranted because Defendant has failed to respond. However, the
amount requested is excessive due to the type of motion at issue and the fact
no opposition was filed. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of
$400 (1 hour of attorney time).  
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Request
for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide verified
responses, without objection, within 30 days.
The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions
against Defendant in the reduced amount of $400.00. Said monetary sanctions are
to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order.
Moving
party to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.