Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV14671, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV14671 Hearing Date: December 21, 2022 Dept: 28
(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Response to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions;
(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2021, Sterling Perkins (“Plaintiff”) commenced the present action by filing a Complaint against Victor Zavala and Susana Garcia (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle; and (2) General Negligence. Plaintiff’s Complaint maintains Plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle and proceeding through a green light when a separate vehicle driven by Defendant Victor Zavala made a left turn and collided with Plaintiff’s motor vehicle.
On June 15, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer.
On October 21, 2022, Defendants filed the following discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Response to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions; and (3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Response to Defendants’ Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions. Defendants’ three discovery motions were each scheduled to come before the Court for hearing on December 21, 2022.
On November 2, 2022, Anthony Willoughby of Willoughby & Associates (“Plaintiff’s Counsel”) filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, moving to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff.
On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel came before the Court for hearing. The Court found Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be deficient, and continued hearing upon the same to February 2, 2023 in order to allow Plaintiff’s Counsel to amend the identified deficiencies.
Also on December 1, 2022, the Court continued hearing upon Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Response to Defendants’ Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions to February 2, 2023. The following discovery motions remain on calendar for December 21, 2022: (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Response to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions.
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Declaration Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel. Plaintiff’s Counsel indicated therein that he has lost communication with Plaintiff and, as a result, is unable to respond to the discovery which has been served upon Plaintiff by Defendants. (Willoughby Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Recognizing that the Court had continued hearing upon one of Defendants’ three discovery motions, Plaintiff’s Counsel requests that “the remaining [discovery] motions should be continued to February 2, 2023” in order to “provide Plaintiff . . . with a full and fair opportunity to prosecute his case”. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Trial is set for January 31, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendants move for an Order compelling Plaintiff’s service of verified responses, without objections, in response to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One), within ten (10) days of this Court’s Order.
Defendants additionally move for an Order issuing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s Counsel in an amount of $585.00.
LEGAL STANDARD
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: ¶(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). . . . ¶(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).) “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.290, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
The Court concludes Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated an Order compelling Plaintiff’s service of verified responses, without objection, in response to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) is warranted and proper, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).) Defendants demonstrate that Plaintiff was served with Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on approximately June 15, 2022 pursuant to electronic service upon Plaintiff’s Counsel. (Manuel Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A at p. 9 [Proof of Service].) Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff was required to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) no later than July 19, 2022. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a) [responding party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days of service], 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B) [time to respond extended by two court days where served by electronic transmission].) Defendants demonstrate Plaintiff has failed to serve a response by this deadline. (Manuel Decl., ¶ 6 [“As of the writing of this motion, Defendant[s] have not received any of Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One . . . and Form Interrogatories, Set One.”].) Defendants further demonstrate that, despite having provided Plaintiff with an extension to respond to the aforementioned discovery (extension to October 3, 2022), Plaintiff has failed to serve a response by this extended deadline. (Ibid.) Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes Defendants are entitled to an Order compelling Plaintiff’s service of verified responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to service a timely response thereto, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).)
The Court further concludes Defendants are entitled to an Order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.290. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.290, subd. (c).) The Court observes Plaintiff has failed to file an Opposition, and has failed to demonstrate that his failure to service a timely response was substantially justified. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendants in an amount of $360.00 for each motion ($150.00 hourly billing rate multiplied by 2 hours preparing motion and attending hearing, plus $60.00 filing fee), equaling to a total of $720.00. (Manuel Decl., ¶ 7.)
The Court refuses to continue hearing upon the two present discovery motions, as requested by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Plaintiff’s Counsel contends hearing upon the two present discovery motions should be continued in order to “provide Plaintiff . . . with a full and fair opportunity to prosecute his case”. (Willoughby Decl., ¶ 6.) However, Plaintiff has been provided with such an opportunity, and has seemingly abandoned the action. The Court will not provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to correct his own neglect.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Response to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a verified response to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within ten (10) days of this Court’s Order. Plaintiff is additionally ordered to pay monetary sanctions in an amount of $360.00 in favor of Defendants within twenty (20) days of this Court’s Order.
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sterling Perkins’ Responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a verified response to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within ten (10) days of this Court’s Order. Plaintiff is additionally ordered to pay monetary sanctions in an amount of $360.00 in favor of Defendants within twenty (20) days of this Court’s Order.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Defendants are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.