Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV06764, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06764    Hearing Date: December 13, 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.  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 Brayden Medina Molina (Plaintiff) moves for monetary sanctions against Defendant Target Corporation (Defendant) for failing to timely provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and First Set of Requests for Production. Defendant has not filed an opposition. Plaintiff has filed a reply.

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).)

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

Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant on May 1, 2023. (Glassman Dec. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) After four extensions, Defendant served objections without verified responses on August 18, 2023. (Glassman Dec. ¶ 13.) Defendant thereafter served additional responses on November 15, 2023. (Reply at p. 2.) Accordingly, it appears that the current motions to compel are moot, as Plaintiff indicates that new motions to compel further will need to be filed to address the current responses. (Id.)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,461.65 for each motion (3 hours of attorney time at $800 plus the filing fee for each motion). The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted due to the discovery abuse, but finds the amount requested to be excessive in light of the type and similarity of the motions at issue. Therefore, the Court grants sanctions in the amount of $2,461.65 total (1.5 hours of attorney time plus the filing fee for each motion).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court orders that Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,461.65 to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days.

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