Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV03121, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03121    Hearing Date: January 5, 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

            Defendant Walmart Inc. (Defendant) moves to Compel Plaintiff Alberto Cortez’s (Plaintiff) response to Request for Production, Set Two. 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, Defendant served a Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on Plaintiff on May 24, 2023. (Colbert Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The responses were due June 26, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) Since then, no responses have been served. Accordingly, because no responses were served, the Court grants the motion to compel.  

Defendant also requests $600 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, representing an hourly rate of $180 for 2 hours preparing this motion and 1 hour to review an opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing, and the $60 filing fee. 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 and the fact no opposition was filed. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $330 (1.5 hour of attorney time, plus the $60 filing fee).  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Set Two is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 15 days.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $330.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.