Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV40946, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40946    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Michael Parker’s (“Plaintiff”) motions to compel responses to written discovery and motion to deem request for admissions admitted against Defendant Andrielle Beamon (“Defendant”) were heard on July 29, 2022.  Because the court was not available to hear argument on this date and Defendant wished to be heard, the motions were all continued to August 16, 2022.

Plaintiff Michael Parker’s (“Plaintiff”) propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, request for admissions (“RFAs”), and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all sets one, on Defendant Andrielle Beamon (“Defendant”) on December 14, 2021.  Despite attempts to meet and confer and extensions of time to respond, at the time of the filing of the motion, Defendant had not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore sought an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions.

            On June 9, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to deem RFAs admitted, and on July 15, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to each motion to compel.  Defendant provides that she served unverified responses to the requests on May 6, 2022, before serving verifications three days later for all discovery on May 9, 2022.  The delay in providing discovery responses was caused by difficulties defense counsel experienced in contacting Defendant, but Defendant contends the motions are now moot.

In reply, Plaintiff argues the motions are not moot as to the sanctions requested, as responses were not provided until after the instant motion were filed.  Defendant then filed her own replies to each of Plaintiff’s reply.  However, Defendant did not seek leave of court prior to filing this additional briefing, and Defendant does not establish that it is proper for an opposing party to file a reply to a moving party’s reply.  Therefore, the court will not consider Defendant’s replies to Plaintiff’s replies. 

Plaintiff does not deny that Defendant has now served verified responses for the subject discovery requests. 

Accordingly, 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.)

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions.  Sanctions are mandatory.  CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)  In this case, sanctions are warranted because responses were not provided until after Plaintiff’s motions were filed.  While Defendant contends that defense counsel did everything possible to provide timely responses to the discovery, Defendant states that responses were not provided because Defendant was unresponsive to defense counsel’s numerous attempts to obtain signed verifications from Defendant.  Defendant fails to provide any authority suggesting that a client failing to respond to his or her counsel constitutes substantial justification for not complying with discovery requests.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,436.65 for each motion.  The request is unreasonable.  The court awards Plaintiff one hour for preparing each form motion [four hours total], one hour total for all replies, which are essentially identical, 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 $1,200 in attorney fees.  Further, the court awards Plaintiff four motion filing fees of $61.65, or $246.60.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record.  Given the representations that responses were delayed due to Defendant failing to timely communicate with defense counsel, sanctions are imposed against Defendant only.  Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,446.60, within twenty days.

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 16^th day of August 2022