Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV28462, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28462 Hearing Date: July 26, 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
DEPT: |
32 |
HEARING DATE: |
July
26, 2024 |
CASE NUMBER: |
22STCV28462 |
MOTIONS: |
Compel
Responses to Special Interrogatories |
MOVING PARTY: |
Plaintiff
Nancy Pogue |
OPPOSING PARTY: |
|
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Nancy Pogue (“Plaintiff”)
moves to compel Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) to serve verified
responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff
seeks 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).)
DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant on
February 29, 2024. (Sarukhanyan Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Responses were due April 1,
2024. (Id.) Plaintiff then granted extensions to May 26, 2024. (Id. ¶
4.) Since then, no responses have
been served. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted.
Plaintiff
requests $2,065 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of
record. This represents an hourly rate of $400 and the $65 filing fee. (Decl. ¶
7.) The Court finds sanctions are warranted, but the amount requested is
excessive given the type of motion, the lack of an opposition, and the fact
counsel can appear at the hearing remotely. Therefore, the
Court awards sanctions in the total amount of $665 (1.5 hour of attorney time and
the filing fee).
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories,
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 and its counsel of record in the reduced amount of $665.
Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days
of the date of this order.
Plaintiff shall
provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.