Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV20816, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20816    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Telma Lujan Gerardo (“Plaintiff”) propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, request for admissions (“RFAs”), and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, on each of Defendants Ryan Jamal McDuffy (“McDuffy”) and City of Brea (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 29, 2021.  To date, despite an attempt to meet and confer, neither McDuffy nor the City has served responses to the subject discovery.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling McDuffy and the City to each to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions.

On September 1, 2022, McDuffy and the City each filed an opposition to the motions.  Defendants assert that because of an administrative error and defense counsel’s mistakes, Defendants did not serve timely responses to the discovery requests.  Defendants state there was no nefarious intent, and that Defendants will provide full responses, without objection, to each discovery request prior to the hearing.  Nonetheless, although Defendants state that responses will be served, at this time there is no evidence showing that Defendants have served responses to any of the discovery requests. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted.  McDuffy and the City are each ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b).)   

Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted are also granted.  (CCP §2033.280(b).)

However, if at the time of this hearing the parties represent responses have been served, the Court will modify its tentative and find the motions moot.  (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  The Court awards Plaintiff one hour for preparing each form motion [four hours total] and one hour to appear at the hearing- but awards this time once- all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $1,000.00 in attorney fees.  Further, the Court awards Plaintiff four motion filing fees of $60, or $240 total, as costs. 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ attorney of record.  Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Defendants directly.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendants’ attorney of record only.  Defendants’ counsel, who represents both McDuffy and the City, is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,240.00, within twenty days.

            As a final note, the Court realizes that each of Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to written discovery against McDuffy and against the City is actually three motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, (b) motion to compel special interrogatories, set one, and (c) motion to compel demand for production of documents, 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 Defendants and lack of any showing of prejudice, the Court will exercise its discretion to hear all six motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $240 in filing fees (4 motions 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 15^th day of September 2022