Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV47208, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47208    Hearing Date: April 25, 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

            Defendants Kathleen Tsinyue Poa
and Li Poa (“Defendants”) move to compel Plaintiff Rita Demby (“Plaintiff”) to
serve verified responses, without objections, to Request for Production of
Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories,
Set One. Defendants seek monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL
STANDARD

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).) 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).)

Requests
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).)

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, Defendants served Request for Production of Documents, Set One,
Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff
on October 11, 2023. (Baharvar Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The last date to provide
responses without objections was December 15, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Since
then, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 6.)  At the hearing on these motions, Defendant
withdrew the motion to compel production of documents. Therefore, because
responses have not been served as to the interrogatories, those motions to
compel are granted.

Defendant also
requests $461.65 in monetary sanctions, for each of the three motions, against
Plaintiff and her counsel of record. This represents an hourly rate of $200 and
the $61.65 filing fee. (Id. ¶ 8.) The Court finds sanctions are
warranted because Plaintiff has failed to respond. However, the
amount requested is excessive due to the type of motion at issue, the fact no
opposition was filed, and because counsel can appear at the hearing remotely.
Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $723.30 (1.5 hour
of attorney time to file and appear at the hearing, plus the $61.65 filing fee,
for both motions).         

CONCLUSION
AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Compel Special Interrogatories,
Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED. Plaintiff Rita Demby shall
provide verified responses, without objection, within 20 days. The Motion to
Compel Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is off calendar.

The Court further GRANTS Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced
amount of $723.30.
Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendants within 30 days
of the date of this order.

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