Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV00327, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00327    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Edgar Larios and Shahnazi Faezeh filed this action against defendants Christian Mendez and Armando Reyes for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

On March 24, 2022, Defendant Christian Menendez (“Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel further responses to written discovery against Plaintiff Shahnazi Faezeh (“Plaintiff”).  Defendant scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) for the parties to discuss the issues for July 14, 2022, but there was no appearance or contact by Plaintiff at the IDC.  Defendant, thus, satisfied the IDC requirement to bring a motion to compel further. 

            The court now considers the motion on the merits; no opposition has been received to the motion. 

2. Motions to Compel Further Responses

On receipt of a response to interrogatories or request for production of documents (“RPDs”), the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(CCP §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).)     

Here, Defendant moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, served on Plaintiff.  The evidence shows that in response to all discovery requests, Plaintiff asserted only objections, including that the requests invaded Plaintiffs’ right to privacy, were seeking work-product, or were seeking information protected by the attorney-client privilege, among others. 

            Defendant avers the discovery requests were initially served on Plaintiff on October 21, 2021, and that Plaintiff did not serve the untimely responses until February 7, 2022, which consisted of boilerplate objections.  Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to respond further, without objection, to all three sets of written discovery.  It is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege or objection.  (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95; see also Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [“The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”].)  Plaintiff failed to appear at the IDC and did not file an opposition to the instant motion, and thus, does not establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the responses.  Furthermore, the court finds the responses to the discovery requests are evasive and incomplete.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(a)(1), 2031.310(a)(1).) 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is granted.  Plaintiff Shahnazi Faezeh is ordered to serve further responses, without objection, to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, within 20 days.

            Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).)  In this case, sanctions are warranted.  Defendant is awarded three hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour for a total attorney’s fees award of $800.00.  Further, Defendant is awarded the motion filing fee of $60 as costs. 

Defendant does not describe any conduct by Plaintiff warranting sanctions against Plaintiff directly.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s attorney of record only.  Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $860.00, within 20 days. 

As a final note, the court realizes that Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to written discovery against Plaintiff is actually three motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, (b) motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, and (c) motion to compel further responses to RPDs, set one.  In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.  Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.  Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by Plaintiff and lack of any showing of prejudice, the court will exercise its discretion to hear all three motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $120 in filing fees (2 motions filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee). 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 28^th day of July 2022