Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 22STCV32589, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV32589, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32589 Hearing Date: June 29, 2023 Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Defendant Wood & Vine, LLC’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories – general and employment, sets one from Plaintiff is MOOT.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Alexander Blackburn, is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,051.65, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories – General and Employment

Discussion

Defendant Wood & Vine, LLC moves to compel responses to form interrogatories – general and employment, sets one from Plaintiff and also requests sanctions.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(b) a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

As of the date of the motion, Plaintiff had failed to serve timely responses to form interrogatories – general and employment, sets one. (Declarations of William B. Declercq, ¶ 6.) In the Opposition, Plaintiff indicates that responses were served on June 2, 2023. (Blackburn Decl., ¶ 16; Exh. 8.) The Court notes that some responses were objection-only, but objections were waived by the failure to serve timely responses. Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff received a two-week extension of time to respond on April 13, 2023, and then Defendant’s counsel offered an open ended extension of time to respond. (Blackburn Decl., ¶6.) The problem is that Plaintiff’s responses were already untimely on April 13, 2023—the interrogatories having been served on March 6, 2023. As such, objections were deemed waived as a matter of law. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(a).) If Plaintiff wishes to obtain relief from such waiver, she may bring a properly-noticed motion pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(a)—not by raising the issue by way of opposition.

On the other hand, because Plaintiff has served responses, the motion to compel response to interrogatories is MOOT. If Defendant seeks further responses, Defendant must bring a motion to compel further responses.

Although Plaintiff’s counsel began preparing discovery responses after the discovery stay was lifted following failed settlement negotiations (Blackburn Decl., ¶ 8), Plaintiff’s counsel states he could not prepare and serve responses within the one week that Defendant’s counsel had mandated. (Id. at ¶ 11.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel does not indicate that he asked for more time to prepare and serve such responses after the May 19, 2023 deadline imposed by Defendant’s counsel. (Id., ¶ 9.) Indeed, it was not until June 2, 2023 that responses were finally served.. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 16.) The instant motions were served on June 1, 2023.

Plaintiff’s counsel did not act with substantial justification in this regard. As such, sanctions pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(c) are appropriate.

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . .the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.

(Cal. Rules Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Alexander Blackburn, is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,051.65, jointly and severally (1 total hour at $275/hour; 1 total hour at $595/hour, plus $120 in filing fees). Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.