Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2021-00008613-CU-NP-NC, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00008613-CU-NP-NC DOE VS. LENHOF [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 10/09/2023

Plaintiff Jane Doe ('Plaintiff')'s motion to compel Defendant Jeffrey Lenhof ('Defendant') to provide responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set One) (the 'Discovery Request'), and for sanctions, is granted.

The court construes Defendant's lack of opposition as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that on August 16, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with the Discovery Request electronically and via U.S. mail. See Clemens Decl., Ex. 1. Defendant's responses were initially due by September 20, 2023. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 1013(a), 1010.6(a)(3)(B), 2030.260(a). On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding the outstanding discovery and requesting responses by no later than October 6, 2023. See Clemens Decl., Ex. 2. To date, Defendant has not served responses to the Discovery Request. Ibid., ¶ 4. The foregoing constitutes good cause to grant the motion. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2030.290(b).

The court may award sanctions to the party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition to the motion was filed. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1348(a). The court must impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories '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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2030.290(c). The party subject to sanctions bears the burden of proving that he or she acted with substantial justification. See Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc.

(2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1424, 1435 (citing Cal. Evid. Code §§ 500 and 550; Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 967, 971). Substantial justification means justification that is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact. See Doe, 200 Cal. App. 4th at 1434 (citing Nader Automotive Group, LLC v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1480). In this case, Defendant, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met his burden of demonstrating that he was substantially justified in failing to provide timely responses to the Discovery Request or that other circumstances render the imposition of sanctions unjust.

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and: (1) directs Defendant to serve verified, Code-compliant responses, without objections, to the Discovery Request within thirty (30) days of this hearing, and (2) awards Plaintiff $475.00 in sanctions (which omits the unnecessary fees and costs anticipated to review an opposition, draft a reply, and prepare for and attend the hearing on this unopposed motion) against Defendant, due and payable to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of this hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, January 26, 2024. If no party appears Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034250 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOE VS. LENHOF [IMAGED]  37-2021-00008613-CU-NP-NC at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 26, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034250