Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV04909, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04909    Hearing Date: October 31, 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

 Plaintiff Rocio Honorato Herrera (“Plaintiff”) now moves for an order to compel verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One from Defendant 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

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 asserts that he served Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant on June 25, 2024. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The responses were due July 26, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff granted an extension for responses without objections to September 13, 2024. Since then, Defendant has not responded and has not filed an opposition to this motion. (Id. ¶ 8.) Therefore, the motions to compel are granted.   

Plaintiff requests $952.91 in monetary sanctions for each motion, against Defendant and its counsel of record, representing an hourly rate of $350, the $60.00 filing fee, and “additional fees” for $17.91. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 9.) The Court finds sanctions are warranted because Defendant has failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the type of motions at issue, the lack of opposition, and the fact counsel can appear at the hearing remotely. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel sets forth no other evidence justifying the $17.91 in additional fees. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 [a request for a sanction shall be “accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought”].) Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,170 (1.5 hours of attorney time to file and appear at the hearing, plus the $60 filing fee, for each of the two motions).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC shall serve verified responses without objections within 30 days. 

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,170.00. 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.