Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV14182, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14182    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) propounded request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff Camille Perry (“Plaintiff”) on June 23, 2022.  To date, despite attempts to meet and confer, Plaintiff has not served responses.  Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motion to compel is unopposed and granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to RPDs, set one, without objections, within thirty (30) days.  (CCP § 2031.300(a), (b).)

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP § 2031.300(c).)  Defendant is awarded one hour for preparing the motion to compel and one hour to appear at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $400 in attorney fees.  Further, Defendant is awarded the motion filing fee of $60 as costs.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record.  Defendant does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiff personally.  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 $460.00, within thirty (30) days.

            As a final note, Defendant reserved the hearing for the instant motion as a hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses.  However, Defendant is clearly not seeking to compel further responses, but rather seeking to compel initial responses.  Defendant should have reserved its motion as a hearing on a Motion to Compel Discovery (Not “Further Discovery”).  Failing to properly reserve a hearing for a motion to compel further manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. 

Counsel is put on notice and should instruct their staff that it is inappropriate to intentionally reserve a hearing date for a different type of motion so that the motion can be heard sooner.  Defendant’s counsel is also put on notice that failure to properly reserve hearings in the future based on the type of motion being heard will result in the matter being taken off calendar.

Defendant’s counsel was similarly put on notice of the inappropriateness of filing a motion and setting it for a hearing designated for a different type of motion on January 23, 2023.  No further notice will be provided to Defendant before the Court takes improperly filed motions off calendar.    

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 24^th day of January 2023