Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV09594, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09594    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Plaintiff CoriAndre Crane’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Demands and Document Production

Plaintiff CoriAndre Crane moves to compel defendants Abraham Melchor Espinoza and Olivia Valentin to serve responses to plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, requests for production of documents, set one, and requests for admissions, set one.  Plaintiff further moves to compel defendants to produce documents in response to the requests for production. 

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).)

The Civil Discovery Act does not provide for a motion to compel responses to requests for admission.  It instead provides for a stronger remedy: “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, as well as for a monetary sanction.”  (CCP § 2033.280(b).)  Plaintiff, however, did not move for such an order.

Plaintiff establishes grounds for ordering defendants to respond to her interrogatories and requests for production.  Plaintiff served form interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one, on defendants Espinoza and Valentin on June 14 and 15, 2023.  (Jackson Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A-B.)  Defendants did not provide any responses by February 5, 2024, when plaintiff’s counsel signed his declaration in support of the motion.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  Espinoza and Valentin therefore did not timely respond to the interrogatories and requests for production and waived any objections to them.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff moves for $2,425 in sanctions against defendants Espinoza and Valentin and their counsel, Keven Steinberg.  Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (CCP § 2023.010(d).)  Espinoza and Valentin failed to respond to authorized discovery.  They show no basis to find they acted with substantial justification or that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.  Sanctions against defendants and their counsel are appropriate. 

            Plaintiff did not, however, reasonably incur $2,425 in expenses.  That amount includes one hour of attorney fees at $485 hourly to prepare a reply to defendants’ opposition.  Defendants did not file an opposition.  Plaintiff did not file a reply.  Plaintiff therefore reasonably incurred only $1,940 in expenses.   

Disposition

            Plaintiff CoriAndre Crane’s motion is denied in part as to compelling defendants to respond to requests for admissions, set one.  The motion is granted as to compelling responses to form interrogatories, set one and to requests for production, set one. 

            Defendants Abraham Melchor Espinoza and Olivia Valentin are each ordered to serve verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories, set one, within 30 days. 

            Defendants Abraham Melchor Espinoza and Olivia Valentin are each ordered to serve verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s requests for production, set one, within 30 days.  Defendants are further ordered to produce all responsive documents concurrently with their written responses.

            Defendants Abraham Melchor Espinoza and Olivia Valentin and defendants’ counsel Keven Steinberg are ordered to pay plaintiff $1,940 in sanctions within 30 days.  Defendants Abraham Melchor Espinoza and Olivia Valentin and defendants’ counsel Keven Steinberg shall be jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.