Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV13947, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV13947 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Patricia Avila's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Plaintiff Patricia Avila’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff Patricia Avila (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Chris Brown (“Brown”) for premises liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress and strict liability.
On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC, changing strict liability to negligence, and adding Defendant Black Pyramid, LLC (“BP”).
On May 23, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.
On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to be heard on December 16, 2022. On December 5, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 4, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant requests the Court grant the motions to compel responses to request for production of documents, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. Defendant also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,826.65 for one motion, and $1,476.65 for the other.
Defendants request the Court deny the motions as moot, and not impose sanctions.
AMENDED TENTATIVE
Having
considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
April 13, 2021, Plaintiff Patricia Avila (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against Defendant Chris Brown (“Brown”) for premises liability, negligent
infliction of emotional distress and strict liability.
On
February 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC, changing strict liability to
negligence, and adding Defendant Black Pyramid, LLC (“BP”).
On
May 23, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.
On
August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to be
heard on December 16, 2022. On December 5, 2022, Defendants filed an
opposition.
Trial
is currently scheduled for May 4, 2023.
PARTY’S
REQUESTS
Defendant
requests the Court grant the motions to compel responses to requests for
production of documents, set two, and form interrogatories, set two, within 30
days of the hearing on the motion. Defendant also requests the Court impose
sanctions totaling $1,826.65 for one motion, and $1,476.65 for the other.
Defendants
request the Court deny the motions as moot, and not impose sanctions.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Under
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely
response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the
demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to
CCP § 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be
served within 30 days of service. CCP §
2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production
responses.
California
Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a
monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery
process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process
includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of
discovery.”
California
Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against
any party, person, or attorney 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.”
California
Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300(c), states that “the court shall impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against
any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling,
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.”
DISCUSSION
Discovery
On
May 26, 2022, Plaintiff served discovery on Brown and Pyramid; Plaintiff
granted multiple extensions but did not receive any responses prior to the
filing of this motion.
Defendants
claim they have served discovery responses and intend to produce verifications
prior to the hearing on the motion. Therefore, the Court finds the motions potentially
moot.
Sanctions
Sanctions
are warranted. Plaintiff is entitled to timely discovery responses. By failing
to provide timely, code-compliant responses, Plaintiff misused the discovery
process; Plaintiff could have simply served discovery responses, noting it was
based on documents currently available. The Court grants sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2023.030(a), CCP § 2030.290(c)
and CCP §2031.300(c).
Defendant
requests sanctions totaling $3,303.30 across all motions, based upon 9 hours of
attorney’s work, at a rate of $350.00 per hour, two $61.65 filling fees and two
$15.00 e-filling fees. The Court awards sanctions totaling $2,406 across both sets
of motions (6 hrs x $350 + 4 x $61.65 + 4 x 15)
\CONCLUSION
Plaintiff
Patricia Avila's Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two and
Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two are
MOOT if Brown and Pyramid have provided verified responses to the discovery.
Plaintiff
Patricia Avila's Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Brown and Pyramid are each ordered
to pay Plaintiff $1,203 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the
motion.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this
ruling with the Court within five days.