Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STUD01663, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STUD01663    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Background

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Marguerita Ludwig (“Plaintiff”) brought this premises liability action against Defendants Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, LLC, Lam Property Management, and the Estate of William Jordison. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on January 15, 2020, Plaintiff was at a property owned by the Lams and leased by William Jordison (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff allegedly fell on the back porch and struck her head, causing her to break her neck and suffer permanent brain damage. According to Plaintiff, Defendants constructed, remodeled, repaired, and/or maintained the back patio and driveway of the Subject Property in such a manner so as to constitute a dangerous condition, and failed to warn of the significant trip hazards created as a result. On March 15, 2023, Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, LLC, Lam Property Management cross-complained against the Estate of William Jordison for indemnity and apportionment.

The Estate of William Jordison (“Moving Defendant”) now moves to compel Plaintiff to provide initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”), and Requests for Production, Set One (“RPDs”). Moving Defendant also requests sanctions with each motion. The motions are unopposed.

 Legal Standard 

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve timely responses, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the interrogatories, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

If a party to whom a demand for the production of documents is directed fails to serve a timely response, the court may make an order a compelling response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300. subd (b).)   A party that fails to serve a timely response waives any objections to the interrogatories, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Motions to Compel

Moving Defendant asks the Court to order Plaintiff to provide verified, Code-compliant responses—without objections—to FROGs, SROGS, and RPDs, on grounds that Defendant properly served Plaintiff with the discovery requests and Plaintiff has failed to respond.

Counsel for Moving Defendant offers proof that FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs were served on Plaintiff on December 16, 2022. (Kraft Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.260, subdivision (a), and 2031.260, subdivision (a), the deadline for Plaintiff to serve responses was January 17, 2023. On January 24, 2023, with no responses having been received, Moving Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff indicating that responses were overdue. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.)

Counsel for Moving Defendant followed up again on February 2, 2023, and February 16, 2023. (Ibid.) However, as of the filing of these motions, Moving Defendant has still not received responses from Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 5.)

The Estate of William Jordison’s motions to compel initial responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs is therefore GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, Code-compliant responses—without objections—to FROGs, SROGS, and RPDs within 30 days.

Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Each of Moving Defendant’s motions to compel is accompanied by a request for monetary sanctions.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it 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).)  Likewise, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)   

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed…”  (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Moving Defendant requests $811.65 with its Motion to Compel Initial Responses to FROGs, and $61.65 with its Motion to Compel Initial Responses to SROGs and Motion to Compel Initial Responses to RPDs.

“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  “The amount to be awarded in attorney's fees is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”  (Ibid.)

Here, counsel for Moving Defendant states his hourly rate is $250, and that he spent two hours meeting and conferring and preparing these motions and anticipates spending an hour arguing the motions at the hearing. The Court finds counsel’s hourly rate to be reasonable. Furthermore, the Court finds the number of hours billed by counsel to be reasonable, as counsel recognizes the motions are very similar and only seeks attorney's fees for one motion. Lastly, the $61.65 filing fee for each motion is recoverable.

Accordingly, sanctions are granted in amount of ($250 x 3 hours) + ($61.65 x 3 filing fees) = $934.95.

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