Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV08599, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08599    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 74

Syner v. Danan

Defendant Marcelle Danan’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to Discovery

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff David Syner sued defendant Marcelle Danan (“Defendant”) on March 2, 2020, asserting five causes of action arising from his residential tenancy at a property Defendant owns on Devista Place in Los Angeles.

On June 5, 2024, Defendant filed four motions to compel initial responses to discovery.

Plaintiff filed no opposition, and Defendant no reply.

Two of the four motions – regarding Defendant’s Form and Special Interrogatories – are now before the Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)-(b).) 

DISCUSSION 

Because Plaintiff filed no opposition, it is undisputed that Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff on March 29, 2024. Responses were due thirty days thereafter. As of the filing of this motion in June, Plaintiff has not responded. (Bubman Decls., ¶ 2.)

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Code-compliant responses without objections.

SANCTIONS

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [section 2023.010 et seq.] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel [initial responses] ... 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(c) [interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [requests for production].)

The court awards sanctions for today’s two motions as follows:

2 hours/motion x 2 motions x $375/hour = $1,500

0.25 hours/motion x 2 motions x $595/hour = $297.5

0.5 hr/hearing x $595 = $297.5

$120 filing fees

Total = $2,215

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions are granted in their entirety. Plaintiff is ordered to provided Code-compliant responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $2,215.00 to Defendant and/or her counsel of record within thirty days of this order.