Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV14689, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14689    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant The FA Bartlett Tree Expert Company

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Cesar Romero

Defendant The FA Bartlett Tree Expert Company’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cesar Romero to Provide Further Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three; Request for Sanctions in the Sum of $2,281.65

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

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Cesar Romero filed this action on April 19, 2021 against, among others, Defendant The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company (“Bartlett”). This action arises out of a dispute between neighbors relating to tree-trimming. Bartlett was hired to conduct the tree-trimming. 

            On or about January 19, 2022, Bartlett served Special Interrogatories, Set Three on Plaintiff. (Pole Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On or about February 10, 2022, Plaintiff served his responses. (Pole Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) The parties met and conferred and agreed that Plaintiff would provide further responses on April 25, 2022. (Pole Decl., ¶¶ 7-13, Ex. F.) Plaintiff failed to provide further responses by the deadline. (Pole Decl., ¶¶ 14-15.)

            Bartlett now moves to compel a further response to Special Interrogatories, Set Three, Nos. 31, 32, and 33.

EVIDENCE

            The court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1-5.

            The court sustains Bartlett’s objections to the Declaration of Cesar Romero. The court overrules Plaintiff’s objections to the Declaration of Nikhil Pole.

LEGAL STANDARD

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory or a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that an answer or statement of compliance is evasive or incomplete, or that an objection is “without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).) Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2031.210, subd. (b).)

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., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

DISCUSSION

On May 2, 2022, after the instant motion was filed, Plaintiff served further responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set Three. (Plaintiff’s Ex. A.) Because further responses were served, the instant motion is rendered moot. Because the issues raised by Bartlett in this motion appear to be resolvable, the court encourages the parties to continue to meet and confer or, alternatively, to schedule an informal discovery conference with the court in order to finally resolve those issues.

It is equitable that Plaintiff, instead of Bartlett, should bear the consequences, and absorb the cost, of Plaintiff’s initially inadequate responses and later calendaring error, which triggered Bartlett’s need to file its motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Bartlett’s motion to compel further responses as moot. The court grants Bartlett’s request for monetary sanctions and orders Plaintiff to pay Bartlett’s counsel $1,081.65 (3.4 hours x $300/hr + $61.65) within 30 days of this order.  

Bartlett is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 25, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court