Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV22727, Date: 2024-07-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV22727 Hearing Date: July 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
|
DEPT: |
32 |
|
HEARING DATE: |
July
5, 2024 |
|
CASE NUMBER: |
23STCV22727 |
|
MOTIONS: |
(1)
Compel Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents (2)
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (3)
Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories |
|
MOVING PARTY: |
Defendant
Thomas Gerald Chu |
|
OPPOSING PARTY: |
None |
BACKGROUND
Defendant Thomas Gerald Chu (“Defendant”)
moves to compel Plaintiff Casey Grant (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified
responses, without objections, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant 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).)
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, Defendant served Demand for Production of Documents, Set One,
Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One on Plaintiff
on March 16, 2024. (Yoakum Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The responses were due April 16,
2024. Since then, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 4.) Therefore, because
responses have not been served, the motions to compel are granted.
Defendant also
requests monetary sanctions for each of the three motions, against Plaintiff
and counsel of record, based on an hourly rate of $225 and the $60 filing fee. (Yoakum
Decl. ¶ 7.) The Court finds sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has
failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive given the type of
motion, the lack of opposition, and the fact counsel can appear at the hearing
remotely. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the total amount of
$1,192.50 (1.5 hour of attorney time and the filing fee, for each motion).
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Accordingly, Defendant Thomas Gerald Chu’s Motions to Compel Demand
for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and
Form Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED. Plaintiff Casey Grant shall provide verified
responses, without objection, within 30 days.
The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $1,192.50.
Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days
of the date of this order.
Defendant shall
provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.