Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV23291, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23291    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Fernando A. Silva Quintana’s Motions to Compel Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc.’s Responses to (1) Requests for Production of Documents and (2) Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Fernando A. Silva Quintana moves to compel defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. (Guardian) to respond to requests for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, 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.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [request for production].)  Failing to serve a timely response results in waiving any objections.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)

On February 1, 2024, plaintiff served his requests for production of documents, set one and special interrogatories, set one, on Guardian.  (Sirmabekian Decls., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Plaintiff agreed to extend Guardian’s deadline to respond to April 6.  (Id., ¶ 6, Ex. B.)  Guardian had not served any responses as of May 17, when plaintiff filed these motions.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  Guardian failed to serve timely responses to plaintiff’s requests for production and special interrogatories.  Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling verified responses without objections.

Sanctions      

In each motion, plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions against Guardian and its counsel, G. Emmett Raitt, Jr.  Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (CCP § 2023.010(d).)  Guardian failed to respond to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set one.  Guardian did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances. 

Plaintiff, however, did not reasonably incur $3,600 in expenses for the motion on requests for production or $4,200 for the motion on special interrogatories.  Each motion includes one hour of attorney fees at $600 hourly anticipated for drafting a reply plus one hour to prepare for and attend the hearing.  (Sirmabekian Decls., ¶ 11.)  Guardian did not oppose the motions.  Plaintiff did not file reply briefs.  Moreover, drafting these simple motions did not reasonably require four and five hours of attorney fees, respectively.  The court finds plaintiff reasonably incurred a total of 3.5 hours of attorney fees at $600 hourly for each motion.

Disposition  toy

Plaintiff Fernando A. Silva Quintana’s motion to compel responses to requests for production is granted.  Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set one, without objections within 30 days.  Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. is further ordered to produce all responsive documents concurrently with the written responses.  Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. and its counsel G. Emmett Raitt, Jr. are ordered to pay plaintiff $2,100 in sanctions within 30 days. 

Plaintiff Fernando A. Silva Quintana’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one, without objections within 30 days.  Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. and its counsel G. Emmett Raitt, Jr. are ordered to pay plaintiff $2,100 in sanctions within 30 days. 

Defendant Guardian Eagle Security, Inc. and its counsel of record G. Emmett Raitt, Jr. are jointly and severally liable for all sanctions.