Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV15514, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23STCV15514    Hearing Date: March 3, 2025    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Ayoka Chapple’s Motion to Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Admission, and Requests for Production

Plaintiff Ayoka Chapple moves to compel defendant Dana D. Fikes to respond to form interrogatories – general, set one, special interrogatories, set one, requests for admission, set one, and requests for production, set one. 

When the responding party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or requests for production, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories], 2031.300(b) [requests for production].)  Failing to serve a timely response results in waiving any objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).) 

The Civil Discovery Act, however, does not provide for moving to compel responses to requests for admission.  Instead, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033,280(b) provides, “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.”  Plaintiff did not move for such an order. 

Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling defendant to respond to her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.  Plaintiff served these discovery requests on defendant on October 8, 2024.  (Musselman Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  Defendant had not served any responses as of December 19, when plaintiff filed this motion.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  Defendant did not serve timely responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests.  Defendant therefore waived any objections to them.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff moves for $3,073.44 in sanctions against defendant.  Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(d).)  Defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests.  Defendant did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances. 

Plaintiff, however, did not reasonably incur $3,073.44 in expenses.  Plaintiff seeks $2,637.50 in attorney fees for 4.0 hours at $350 per hour, 1.5 hours at $225 per hour, 0.4 hours at $500 per hour, and an anticipated 2.0 hours at $350 per hour for the hearing.  (Musselman Decl., ¶ 16.)  This simple motion did not reasonably require so much work.  The court will award $1,650 for 2.5 hours at $350 per hour, 1.0 hour at $225 per hour, 0.4 hours at $500 per hour, and 1.0 hour at $350 for the hearing.  Plaintiff also asserts she incurred a $435 filing fee for this motion.  (Ibid.)  The fee for filing a motion is $60.  The court’s records show that, including fees for electronic filing, plaintiff incurred $66.75 for this motion.  The court will therefore impose $1,717.69 in sanctions representing: $1,650 in attorney fees, $0.94 in postage, and $66.75 in filing fees.

  Disposition

Plaintiff Ayoka Chapple’s motion to compel defendant Dana D. Fikes is denied in part as to requests for admission.  Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Dana D. Fikes to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production is granted.

Defendant Dana D. Fikes is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to plaintiff’s form interrogatories – general, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one, within 10 days.  Defendant shall produce all responsive documents concurrently with her written responses.  Defendant Dana D. Fikes is ordered to pay plaintiff $1,717.69 in sanctions within 10 days.