Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 21STCV31909, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31909    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No. 

Lucich vs. Kwok, et. al., Case No. 21STCV31909

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Plaintiff Matthew Lucich (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Edger Olivares (Defendant) to provide a further response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 in the Form Interrogatories (Set One). The motion is denied as moot. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel in the amount of $2,998.41.

Plaintiff propounded the Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant on August 5, 2022. (Belisle Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant served responses on September 11, 2022. (Belisle Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. J.) Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks Defendant to “[i]dentify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings,” and state the facts, witnesses, and documents relied upon for each. In response, Defendant objected based on vagueness, ambiguity, and privilege, and stated that Defendant’s affirmative defenses were “based on Defendant’s general denial that there was any wrongdoing.” (Belisle Decl., Ex. J.)

Defendant served a supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 on December 2, 2022. (Stahl Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is moot.

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[m]aking, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subds. (d), (e).)

The Court orders monetary sanctions against Defendant and his counsel for the failure to timely respond. Plaintiff points out in the reply that Defendants agreed to serve supplemental responses at the September 21, 2022 IDC, but did not serve those responses even after being given an additional fourteen-week extension. (Reply p. 1:4.)]

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,998.41, based on a rate of $450 per hour, for 3.3 hours to draft this motion, 1.2 hours to meet and confer, 1 hour to write the reply, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing (6.5 total); plus, a filing fee of $73.41. (Belisle Decl. ¶¶ 27-29.) The requested sanctions are granted.