Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00604, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00604    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 03/22/2024 -8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV00604
Trial Date: 12/09/2024
Case Name: REGINA A. CASTILLOS v. MIHRAN Y. MEGUERIAN; IVET GRIGORYAN; MODERA EVENT VENUE, INC.; and DOES 1-50

 TENTATIVE RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES

RELIEF REQUESTED¿ 
Plaintiff, Gina A. Castillos, moves this Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant, Modera Event Venue, Inc., Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant, under CCP §2030.290 and Request for Costs, Sanctions, and Attorneys Fees under CCP §§2023.010 et seq. and 2030.290 et seq. against Defendant Moder Event Venue, Inc., and/or it’s Attorney of Record, Cullins & Grandy, LLP.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions, reimbursement of costs, and attorney’s fees against Defendant in the amount of $1,661.50 under  Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 et seq. and 2030.290.

Procedural

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Gina A. Castillos

Responding Party: No Opposition Submitted

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition Submitted as of 3/16/2024

Reply: No Reply as of 3/18/2024

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a):No – This motion and proposed order were served via email to service@cullinsgrandylaw.com; however, on eCourt, Defendant’s counsel’s email address is listed as agrandy@cullinsgrandylaw.com. Since no Opposition was submitted, and the email addresses don’t match up, Plaintiff is to address this issue at the hearing.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action on 3/24/2023 against Mihran Y. Meguerian and Ivet Grigoryan. On 8/25/2023, Plaintiff named Doe 11 as Modera Event Venue, Inc. after having discovered the true name of Doe 11.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES
Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP 2030.260(a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP §2030.290(b).)

“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §2030.290(a).)

Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4^th 390, 404 citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)

ANALYSIS
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant, Modera Event Venue, Inc., with Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. After several extensions, eventually on January 31, 2024 when Defendant requested another extension, Plaintiff granted a final extension to February 14, 2024 for verified responses without objections. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff did not receive responses.

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant did not provide responses within 30 days, and Defendant did not provide responses by the extension deadline.

If Plaintiff can show proof of service, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from Defendant, Modera Event Venue, Inc., to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide verified responses, without objections, within 20 days of this order.

Sanctions

CCP §2030.290 states in relevant part:

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(CCP §2030.290(c).)

“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).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions, reimbursement of costs, and attorney’s fees against Defendant in the amount of $1,661.50.

Plaintiff’s counsel requested sanctions as follows: (1) A billing rate of $200.00 per hour; (2) Four hours preparing this motion; (3) One hour of anticipated review of Defendant’s Opposition; (4) One hour of preparation of Plaintiff’s Reply; (5) Two hours for court appearance; and (6) $61.65 for the cost of filing this motion.

The Court will discuss the issue of sanctions with counsel.