Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV06652, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06652    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff Victoria Behrens

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants Equity Residential Properties, LLC, Equity                                                                    Residential Management, LLC, Equity Residential Services, LLC,                                                  Joyce Eisman.

Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of an apartment fire.

            On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff Victoria Behrens (Plaintiff) served Defendants Equity Residential Properties, LLC, Equity Residential Management, LLC, Equity Residential Services, LLC, and Joyce Eisman. (Defendants) with Special Interrogatories.

            Since Defendants failed to respond, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer on June 28, 2022. On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff served, but did not file, a motion to compel discovery. Defendants still failed to provide responses.

            On October 10, 2022, the parties agreed to stay written discovery pending mediation scheduled for January 2023. The parties confirmed the discovery stay would cover the interrogatory responses at issue. However, Plaintiff maintained that the stay would not waive the lateness of Defendants’ responses, which were still forthcoming.

            On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff lifted the stay on discovery. The next day, Plaintiff sent Defendants a meet and confer letter, demanding responses to the special interrogatories.

            On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel discovery and request for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD 

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

DISCUSSION

            In light of related orders, the court need only address the issue of sanctions. Plaintiff here requests discovery sanctions of $1,800 in attorney’s fees for 4.5 hours of work. However, this motion largely duplicates the motions brought by Plaintiffs Arielle Fox and Megan Horrall. 4.5 hours for this motion alone is therefore unreasonable. The court finds 1 hour reasonable. Accordingly, the court orders Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $400 in attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions within 30 days of this order.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the motion is moot. However, the court grants Plaintiff Victoria Behrens’s request for sanctions.

            The court orders Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay $400 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 18, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff Johanna Czarnecki

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants Equity Residential Properties, LLC, Equity                                                                    Residential Management, LLC, Equity Residential Services, LLC,                                                  Joyce Eisman.

Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of an apartment fire.

            On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff Johanna Czarnecki (Plaintiff) served Defendants Equity Residential Properties, LLC, Equity Residential Management, LLC, Equity Residential Services, LLC, and Joyce Eisman. (Defendants) with Special Interrogatories.

            Since Defendants failed to respond, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer on June 28, 2022. On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff served, but did not file, a motion to compel discovery. Defendants still failed to provide responses.

            On October 10, 2022, the parties agreed to stay written discovery pending mediation scheduled for January 2023. The parties confirmed the discovery stay would cover the interrogatory responses at issue. However, Plaintiff maintained that the stay would not waive the lateness of Defendants’ responses, which were still forthcoming.

            On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff lifted the stay on discovery. The next day, Plaintiff sent Defendants a meet and confer letter, demanding responses to the special interrogatories.

            On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel discovery and request for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD 

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

DISCUSSION

            In light of related orders, the court need only address the issue of sanctions. Plaintiff here requests discovery sanctions of $1,800 in attorney’s fees for 4.5 hours of work. However, this motion largely duplicates the motions brought by Plaintiffs Arielle Fox and Megan Horrall. 4.5 hours for this motion alone is therefore unreasonable. The court finds 1 hour reasonable. Accordingly, the court orders Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $400 in attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions within 30 days of this order.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the motion is moot. However, the court grants Plaintiff Johanna Czarnecki’s request for sanctions.

            The court orders Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay $400 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 18, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court