Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV11082, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11082    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Sharon Lorraine Ferguson (“Plaintiff”) propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, request for admissions (“RFAs”), and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, on Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) on April 28, 2022.  Plaintiff asserts that as of the date of the filing of the motions, despite attempts to meet and confer, Defendant had not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore sought an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions.

On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to each motion to compel and the motion to deem RFAs admitted.  Defendant provides that it served responses to each discovery request on August 1, 2022.  Defendant provides responses were not timely served due to a calendaring error by defense counsel.[1] 

In reply, Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant served responses to the subject discovery.  Plaintiff, however, contends that sanctions should be imposed because responses were served only after the instant motions were filed. 

The Court finds that the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted are moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiff prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  Because Plaintiff was not required to meet and confer before filing these motions, and because responses were not served until after the motions were filed, sanctions are warranted.  Plaintiff is awarded one hour for preparing each form motion [three hours total] and one hour to appear at the hearing- but is awarded this time once- all at the reasonable rate $200 per hour, for a total of $800 in attorney fees.  Further, Plaintiff is awarded three motion filing fees of $60, or $180 total, as costs. 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record.  Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Defendant directly.  Instead, Defendant provides responses were not timely served due to a calendaring error by defense counsel.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant’s attorney of record only.  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $960.00, within twenty days.

As a final note, the Court realizes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories, against Defendant is actually two motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (b) motion to compel special interrogatories, 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 Defendant and lack of any showing of prejudice, the Court will exercise its discretion to hear all motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $60 in filing fees (1 motion filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee). 

Plaintiff 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 14^th day of December 2022