Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV38063, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38063    Hearing Date: August 7, 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 (which is highly encouraged).  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

MOTIONS

            Defendants MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. and Richard Ferrante (collectively “Defendants”) move to compel responses from plaintiff Binh Nguyen to: (1) Requests for Production, set one (“RPDs”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROGs”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROGs”). Defendants also request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not opposed.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Defendants’ counsel, Elizabeth Carpenter, attests defendants served the relevant RPDs, SROGs, and FROGs on plaintiff on February 17, 2023. (Carpenter Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendants agreed that plaintiff could have until May 31, 2023 to respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 5.) Having received no responses to any of the propounded discovery, defendants filed the instant motions on July 12, 2023.

Plaintiff has filed no opposition; defendants filed a notice of non-opposition in lieu of reply.

Because plaintiff has offered no contrary account of defendants’ facts, the court finds it undisputed that plaintiff has failed to timely respond to defendants’ discovery requests.

Defendants also request sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subdivision (c); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The 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”].) Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c) and 2031.300, subdivision (c), respectively, require the imposition of monetary sanctions where a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories or requests for production of documents, unless the court finds the party that failed to respond acted with substantial justification. Plaintiff made no argument regarding substantial justification; defendants are entitled to mandatory sanctions.

Defendants request monetary sanctions of $1,180.00 for its FROG and RPD motions and $1,680.00 for its SROG motion. Defendants base their demands on a reasonably hourly rate of $280 per hour for preparing, filing, and arguing their motions. However, the hours demanded are excessive.

Defendants claim 4.8 hours of attorney time expended “in preparation of meet and confer correspondence and research and preparation of [the SROG motion], including the notice, memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of counsel, and supporting evidence”, and 1.0 hour of equivalent time for the FROG and RPD motions, respectively. (Carpenter Decl., ¶ 11(a) [equivalent declaration for all three motions].) Meet and confer correspondence is not required for filing a motion to compel initial responses. The motions are standard, uncomplicated, and substantially identical. The court finds 3.0 hours of attorney time, at the outside, appropriate for preparing all three motions to compel.

Defendants also claim 6.0 hours in total “to review any opposition and prepare a reply brief thereto[.]” (Id., ¶ 11(b).) There was no opposition or reply, so the court declines to award this amount, much less for each separate motion.

Defendants claim “1 hour of anticipated time to appear for and argue ... at hearing” for each motion separately. (Id., ¶ 11(c).) Argument will be heard simultaneously for all three motions, and the court awards .5 hour for all three.

Defendants are entitled to costs in the amount of the $60 filing fee for each motion.

In total, the court awards 3.0 hours for preparing and filing all three motions and .5 hour for appearing and arguing all three motions, as well as $60 in costs for each separately. The sanctions amount to a total of $1,160.00.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG. Plaintiff is ordered to provide full and complete responses, without objections, within fourteen (14) days of notice of the instant order.

Further, the court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,160.00 to Defendants, by and through their counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of the instant order.

            Defendants to give notice and file proof of such.