Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV41658, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV41658 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: 3
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District
Department
3
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
21STCV41658 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
December
16, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: motion to compel answers, without
objections, to defendant jason guyton’s form interrogatories, set no. one propounded
onto plaintiff osbee sangster; request for order awarding monetary sanctions |
||
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jason Guyton
RESPONDING PARTY: N/A
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Osbee
Sangster to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Without
Objections and for Monetary Sanctions
The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this
motion. No opposition was filed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Osbee Sangster (“Plaintiff”)
filed this action on November 12, 2021.
On July 29, 2022, Defendant Jason
Guyton (“Defendant”) served Form Interrogatories (Set One) to Plaintiff. (Declaration
of Raffy Boulgourjian ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due no later than September
3, 2022. (Boulgourjian Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) No
responses to the interrogatories were served, and neither Plaintiff nor
Plaintiff’s attorney have responded to communication attempts by Defendant. (Boulgourjian
Decl., ¶ 6.)
Defendant now moves for an order
compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to the interrogatories
and for monetary 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).)
Here, Plaintiff failed to serve
responses to the interrogatories. Therefore, all objections are waived.
Moreover, the court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted.
Defendant requests $5,010, comprised of a
$60 filing fee, 6 hours of work on this motion, and 5 hours of prospective
work. (Boulgourjian Decl., ¶ 8.)
Defendant’s counsel has an hourly billing rate of $450 per hour. (Id.)
In light of the fact
that no oppositions were filed, the court deducts from the sanctions award the
time anticipated to be spent by Defendant on reviewing an opposition, preparing
a reply, and appearing at the hearing of this motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel.
The court orders Plaintiff to serve complete verified responses,
without objections, within 30 days of the date of notice of this motion, to Defendant’s
Form Interrogatories (Set One).
The court orders Plaintiff to pay $2,760 in monetary sanctions to Defendant
within 30 days of the date of notice of this motion.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin
Leis
Judge
of the Superior Court