Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV24572, Date: 2024-06-03 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: 23STCV24572    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff The Lox Club, Inc.’s 6 Motions to Compel Discovery Responses

Plaintiff The Lox Club, Inc. moves to compel defendants Craze, LLC and Scott Rosenbluth each to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.  Defendants served responses on April 19, four days after plaintiff filed these motions.  (Gabriel Decl., ¶ 12.)  The motions are moot as to orders compelling responses. 

Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions against defendants and their counsel, Jonathan G. Gabriel.  “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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”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(a).)

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s requests for sanctions on the basis that these motions were premature and unnecessary.  Defendants argue, “Despite receiving an extension of time to permit any motions to be filed 45 days after substantive responses were served, Plaintiff's counsel prepared and filed six (6) Motions to Compel demanding monetary sanctions two (2) weeks after Mr. Gabriel confirmed the extension of time and indicated that he was still working with his client to provide the responses.”  (Opp., p. 2.)

This argument misinterprets the nature of the extension.  Plaintiff’s counsel proposed the following extension on March 27: “[C]an we stipulate that our 45 day deadline to move to compel further responses to either the objections provided on February 14, 2024, or any additional responses your client provides, will be due 45 days after service of your clients’ substantive responses that you are preparing?”  (Gabriel Decl., Ex. 3.)  On April 1, defendants’ counsel, responded, “[Y]es, the extension is confirmed.”  (Id., Ex. 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel replied: “But to reiterate, if we don’t have docs and complete responses by this Friday, we’ll be filing motion[s] to compel next week and seeking sanctions.”  (Ibid.) 

The extension concerned the 45-day deadline to move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(c) and 2031.310(c).  It did not extend the deadline to serve the responses in the first place.  In contrast with compelling further responses, there is no deadline to file a motion to compel responses.  (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Plaintiff also gave defendants another warning before filing these motions.  On April 8, plaintiff’s counsel wrote, “Having still received nothing despite your multiple promises and our multiple extensions, we are proceeding to prepare and file motions to compel and for sanctions against your client and your firm.”  (Gabriel Decl., Ex. 4.)  Defendants’ counsel did not reply until April 15.  (Id., Ex. 5.) 

            Plaintiff shows good cause for sanctions.  Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions.  (CCP § 2023.010(d).)  Plaintiff did not prematurely file these motions.  Plaintiff initially served the discovery in January 2024.  Plaintiff gave defendants multiple extensions to respond.  Defendants did not act with substantial justification in failing to timely respond.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.

            Plaintiff did not, however, reasonably incur $1,932.50 for each of these six motions.  Plaintiff seeks sanctions for the $60 filing fee plus 3.5 hours of attorney fees at $535 hourly.  (Selmont Decls., ¶¶ 4-5.)  That amount includes 1.5 hours for analyzing the opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing on each motion.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  But defendants filed a single omnibus opposition, and plaintiff filed a single omnibus reply.  The court is hearing the six motions on the same day.  These simple, duplicative motions did not reasonably require 3.5 hours each.  The court finds that, on each motion, plaintiff reasonably incurred one hour of attorney fees at $535 hourly, plus the $60 filing fee, totaling $595 on each motion.

Disposition

            Plaintiff The Lox Club’s six motions to compel discovery responses are moot as to orders compelling responses. 

            Plaintiff’s six motions to compel discovery responses are granted in part as to sanctions.  For plaintiff’s three motions to compel responses by Craze, LLC, defendant Craze, LLC and its counsel Jonathan G. Gabriel are ordered to pay plaintiff a combined total of $1,785 in sanctions within 30 days.  Defendant Craze, LLC and its counsel are jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.  For plaintiff’s three motions to compel responses by Scott Rosenbluth, defendant Scott Rosenbluth and his counsel Jonathan G. Gabriel are ordered to pay plaintiff a combined total of $1,785 in sanctions within 30 days.  Defendant Scott Rosenbluth and his counsel are jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.