Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV28198, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 20STCV28198    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, and with no opposition having been filed, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff Chun Ho Tang (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Mario Salazar and Harbor Dispatch Transport, Inc. (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on August 9, 2018.

On March 15, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for January 30, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

            Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three for failing to serve timely responses.

            Defendants also ask the Court to impose $1,575.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

            Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On February 10, 2023, Defendants electronically served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three, on Plaintiff. (Scordalakis Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff has failed to respond. (Scordalakis Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, so there is no evidence to indicate whether Plaintiff has provided any responses since the filing of this motion or otherwise served any responses. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to an order compelling responses to this set of discovery requests.

As for Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions, the Court finds there is no indication that Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or that there are other circumstances that would make an imposition of sanctions unjust, and thus agrees that sanctions are warranted. However, the amount requested is excessive for a single motion to compel responses. The Court finds that the appropriate amount is $450, comprised of 1.5 hours spent preparing the motion and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 2.0 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $225.00.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay $450.00 in monetary sanctions to Defendants within 20 days of this ruling.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendants are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.