Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV19879, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19879    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: 74

Morrison Express Corporation v. HT Pet Products, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a breach of contract.

            On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff Morrison Express Corporation (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant HT Pet Products, LLC (Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) accounts shared; and (4) quantum meruit.

            On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with special interrogatories.

            On November 14, 2023, Defendant’s counsel claimed to have not received the discovery.

            Plaintiff re-sent the special interrogatories and extended Defendant’s time to respond to December 14, 2023.

            However, Defendant did not provide timely responses to the special interrogatories.

            On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the discovery responses.

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.) 

DISCUSSION 

            This motion is moot because Defendants served responses to the special interrogatories on January 19, 2024. However, sanctions are necessary because Defendant’s failure to respond in time lacked substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has provided a breakdown of work performed. (Flashman Decl., ¶ 7.) But this motion largely duplicates Plaintiff’s prior motion. The court will adjust the award accordingly.

CONCLUSION 

The court finds this motion moot. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $307.50 within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

Morrison Express Corporation v. HT Pet Products, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a breach of contract.

            On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff Morrison Express Corporation (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant HT Pet Products, LLC (Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) accounts shared; and (4) quantum meruit.

            On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with form interrogatories.

            On November 14, 2023, Defendant’s counsel claimed to have not received the discovery.

            Plaintiff re-sent the form interrogatories and extended Defendant’s time to respond to December 14, 2023.

            However, Defendant did not provide timely responses to the form interrogatories.

            On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the discovery responses.

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.) 

DISCUSSION 

            This motion is moot because Defendants served responses to the form interrogatories on January 19, 2024. However, sanctions are necessary because Defendant’s failure to respond in time lacked substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has provided a breakdown of work performed. (Flashman Decl., ¶ 7.) But this motion largely duplicates Plaintiff’s prior motion. The court will adjust the award accordingly.

CONCLUSION 

The court finds this motion moot. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $307.50 within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice.