Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV30275, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV30275 Hearing Date: May 15, 2023 Dept: 52
Plaintiff
Fabienne Sanegor’s Motions to Compel Defendant Walmart, Inc. to: (1) Respond to
Form Interrogatories, Set Two; and (2) Respond to Demands for Inspection, Set
Two
Plaintiff Fabienne Sanegor moves to
compel defendant Walmart, Inc. to respond without objections to plaintiff’s form
interrogatories – general, set two, and demand for inspection, set two.
When
a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories or demands for inspection,
the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories];
2031.300(b) [demands for inspection].)
Failure to timely respond waives any objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)
Plaintiff
served these discovery requests on Walmart, Inc. on October 12, 2022. (Meenan Decls., ¶ 12, Ex. 1.) Walmart did not serve a timely response. (Id., ¶ 15.)
Plaintiff
therefore is entitled to an order compelling Walmart to respond, without
objections, to form interrogatories – general, set two, and to demand for
inspection, set two.
Sanctions
In each motion, plaintiff moves for $2,000 in
sanctions against Walmart. Failing to
respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery
process subject to monetary sanctions.
(CCP § 2023.010(d).) For
interrogatories and demands for inspection, sanctions are mandatory unless the
responding party acted with substantial justification or sanctions would
otherwise be unjust under the circumstances.
(CCP § 2030.290(c) [interrogatories]; § 2031.300(c) [demands for
inspection].)
Walmart did not timely respond to plaintiff’s
discovery requests. The court finds it
did not act with substantial justification, and sanctions are just under the
circumstances.
The court finds, however, that plaintiff did not
reasonably incur $2,000 in fees for each motion. Plaintiff’s counsel states he spent two hours
working on each motion and expected to spend another two hours drafting a reply
and appearing at the hearing. (Meenan
Decls., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff did not file a
reply. The court is hearing both motions
at the same time. Moreover, an
experienced attorney such as plaintiff’s counsel should have been able to draft
these simple motions in less time. The
court finds plaintiff reasonably incurred 1.5 hours of fees at $500 hourly,
plus the $60 filing fee, for a total of $810 in sanctions on each motion.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Fabienne
Sanegor’s motion to compel defendant Walmart, Inc. to respond without
objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general, set two is granted. Defendant Walmart, Inc. is ordered to
serve verified responses without objections to form interrogatories – general,
set two, within 20 days. Defendant
Walmart, Inc. is ordered to pay plaintiff $810 in sanctions within 20
days.
Plaintiff
Fabienne
Sanegor’s motion to compel defendant Walmart, Inc. to respond without
objections to plaintiff’s demand for inspection, set two is granted. Defendant Walmart, Inc. is ordered to
serve verified responses without objections to demand for inspection, set two,
within 20 days. Defendant Walmart, Inc.
is ordered to pay plaintiff $810 in sanctions within 20 days.
Plaintiff
Fabienne Sanegor’s Motions: (1) To Compel Defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. to Respond
to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; (2) To Compel Defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C.
to Respond to Demand for Inspection, Set Two; and (3) To Deem Admitted the
Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set One
(1)
Interrogatories and (2) Demand for Inspection
Plaintiff
Fabienne Sanegor moves to compel defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. Inc. to respond
without objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general, set two, and
demand for inspection, set two.
Plaintiff
served these discovery requests on UKAP Trading, L.L.C. on October 12,
2022. (Meenan Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff gave UKAP Trading five extensions
to respond. (Id., ¶ 15.) UKAP Trading did not respond by the final
deadline of January 6, 2023. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff
therefore is entitled to an order compelling UKAP Trading to respond, without
objections, to plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general, set two and demand
for inspection, set two.
(3)
Requests for Admission
Plaintiff Fabienne Sanegor moves for
an order deeming the truth of matters specified in request for admissions, set
one, admitted against defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C.
When a party fails
to respond to requests for admission, the requesting party may move for an
order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters
specified in the requests be deemed admitted.
(CCP § 2033.280(b).) An order
deeming matters admitted is mandatory “unless [the court] finds that the party
to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the
hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that
is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Plaintiff
served her requests for admission, set one on UKAP Trading, L.L.C. on October
12, 2022. (Meenan Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff gave UKAP Trading five extensions to
respond. (Id., ¶ 15.) UKAP Trading did not respond by the final
deadline of January 6, 2023. (Ibid.)
UKAP Trading has
not served a proposed response to the requests for admission. An order deeming the matters admitted is
therefore mandatory.
Sanctions
In each motion, plaintiff moves for $1,060 in
sanctions against defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. Failing to respond to an authorized method of
discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary
sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) For interrogatories and demands for
inspection, sanctions are mandatory unless the responding party acted with
substantial justification or sanctions would otherwise be unjust under the
circumstances. (CCP § 2030.290(c)
[interrogatories]; § 2031.300(c) [demands for inspection].) For requests for admission, sanctions are
mandatory—with no exception for substantial justification or other
circumstances. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
UKAP Trading did not timely respond to plaintiff’s
discovery requests. The court finds it
did not act with substantial justification, and sanctions are just under the
circumstances.
The court finds, however, that plaintiff did not
reasonably incur $1,060 in fees for each motion. Plaintiff’s counsel states he spent one hour
working on each motion and expected to spend another hour drafting a reply and
appearing at the hearing. (Meenan
Decls., ¶ 18.) Plaintiff did not file any
reply. The court is hearing these
motions at the same time. Moreover, an
experienced attorney such as plaintiff’s counsel should have been able to draft
these simple motions in less time. The
court finds plaintiff reasonably incurred 1.5 hours of fees at $500 hourly,
plus the $60 filing fee, for a total of $810 in sanctions on each motion.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Fabienne
Sanegor’s motion to compel defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. to respond without
objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general, set two is granted. Defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. is ordered
to serve verified responses without objections to form interrogatories –
general, set two, within 20 days.
Defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. is ordered to pay plaintiff $810
in sanctions within 20 days.
Plaintiff
Fabienne
Sanegor’s motion to compel defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. to respond without
objections to plaintiff’s demand for inspection, set two is granted. Defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. is ordered
to serve verified responses without objections to demand for inspection, set
two, within 20 days. Defendant UKAP
Trading, L.L.C. is ordered to pay plaintiff $810 in sanctions within 20
days.
Plaintiff
Fabienne
Sanegor’s motion to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in requests
for admission, set one to defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. is granted. The truth of the matters specified in plaintiff
Fabienne Sanegor’s requests for admission, set one to defendant UKAP Trading,
L.L.C. is hereby deemed admitted.
Defendant UKAP Trading, L.L.C. is ordered to pay plaintiff $810
in sanctions within 20 days.