Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV28318, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28318    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff United Waterworks, Inc. sues Defendants Golden State Water Company (GSWC), Precision Pipeline, Incorporated (Precision Pipeline), American Contractors Indemnity Company (American Indemnity), North River Insurance Company (North River Insurance), Hudson Insurance Company (Hudson Insurance), Doe 5 Dan K. Eberhart aka Daniel K. Eberhart, and Does 1-4 and 6-20 pursuant to an August 30, 2022 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Goods Had and Delivered (95th Street Project), (3) Account Stated (95th Street Project), (4) Goods Had and Delivered (108th Street Project), (5) Account Stated (108th Street Project), (6) Enforcement of Claim on Stop Payment Notice (108th Street Project), (7) Enforcement of Claim Against Contractor’s License Bond, and (8) Constructive Fraud.

Defendant Golden State Water sues co-Defendants Precision Pipeline and Dan K. Eberhart pursuant to an October 25, 2022 Cross-Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Implied Contractual Indemnity.

Motion Before the Court

On February 13, 2023, GSWC served a Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Precision Pipeline.

No responses thereto were made by Precision Pipeline as of April 5, 2023.

That same day, GSWC’s counsel sent a letter to Precision Pipeline’s counsel, informing Precision Pipeline’s counsel that GSWC would move to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, if Precision Pipeline did not respond by April 10, 2023.

No responses thereto were made by Precision Pipeline as of April 20, 2023, nor did Precision Pipeline’s counsel respond to the April 5th letter.

That same day, GSWC moved to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and further requested monetary sanctions of $1,600 against Precision Pipeline and its counsel.

This motion is now before the Court and is unopposed by Precision Pipeline.

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

Legal Standard

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]);

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260 [demand to produce]); and

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce]).

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

Order Compelling Interrogatory Responses: GRANTED.

GSWC provides evidence showing that it served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Precision Pipeline on February 13, 2023. (Mot., King Decl., Ex. A, Proof of Service.)

GSWC provides evidence that the deadline for Precision Pipeline to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, has expired—i.e., 30 days after February 13, 2023, plus two court days in light of e-service – and that no responses were received as of the date of the filing of the motion. (See Mot., King Decl., ¶ 3 [no responses as of April 5, 2023 and again no further responses as of date of signing the declaration on April 20, 2023].)

A review of Special Interrogatories, Set One, shows that the sole request therein is within the scope of discovery because it requests the last known home and work address and telephone number for Defendant Doe 5, Dan Eberhardt, who may have information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Mot., King Decl., Ex. A.)

GSWC’s motion is therefore GRANTED.

Sanctions: GRANTED, in Part.

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

The 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, subd. (a).)

GSWC seeks $1,600 in monetary sanctions against Precision Pipeline and its counsel in connection with this motion, including compensation for: (1) three hours expended by counsel to meet and confer and prepare this motion, at a rate of $400 per hour; (2) two hours expected to be expended by counsel to reply to any opposition, at a rate of $400 per hour; and (3) a $60 filing fee, but requesting a reduction from $2060 to $1600. (Mot., King Decl., ¶ 4.)

The Court GRANTS sanctions against Precision Pipeline, in Part, in the amount of $1,260, comprised of: (1) three hours expended meeting and conferring and preparing this motion, at a reasonable rate of $400 per hour; and (2) $60 in filing costs.

However, sanctions are DENIED as to Precision Pipeline’s counsel. 

Conclusion

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Golden State Water Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories Against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Precision Pipeline, Incorporated is GRANTED.

Precision Pipeline, Incorporated is ORDERED to provide code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within 15 days of this ruling.

The corresponding Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, in Part, in the amount of $1,260, only against Precision Pipeline, Incorporated, but not against counsel.

Precision Pipeline, Incorporated is ORDERED to remit payment of $1,260 to Golden State Water Company within 15 days of this ruling.