Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01298, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV01298    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SIGMA POOL SERVICE TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 8/26/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Isaac Aleman

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Defendant Sigma Pool Service to serve full and complete verified responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, and to impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and his attorney of record, in the amount of $1,265.98.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged injuries that Plaintiffs sustained from a motor vehicle collision on August 26, 2021.

On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff Issac Aleman (“Aleman” or “Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Sigma Pool Service, Carlos Marvin Loaisiga Blanco (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, alleging one causes of action for Negligence/Negligence Per Se. Subsequently, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on June 23, 2023.

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set Two (the “Motion”).

On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion.

ANALYSIS

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) The party that fails to timely respond waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product, unless the Court, on motion, determines that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) attests that on April 15, 2024, Defendant Sigma Pool Service was served with the second set of Requests for Production via email, to which responses were due on May 16, 2024. (Thompson Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. “A.”) Having not received any responses by the due date, Counsel sent a follow up email to Defendants’ counsel on June 26, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) On July 23, 2024, Counsel sent another email to Defendants’ counsel, requesting responses, without objection, to be provided by August 2, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. “C.”)  Despite these efforts, no responses had been served by Defendant by the time of the filing of the Motion. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Defendant Sigma Pool Service failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two, thereby waiving any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two.

A.    Monetary Sanctions

“Except as provided in subdivision (d) [inapplicable here], 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 one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust [...]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Underlines added.)

Given that the Court has granted the Motion, it finds that the mandatory sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) applicable in this case.

Accordingly, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $978.48, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $575.00 for 1.5 hours reasonably spent, in addition to a $115.98 filing fee (Thompson Decl. ¶ 7.)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Isaac Aleman’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set Two, is GRANTED.

Defendant Sigma Pool Service is ordered to serve responses, without objection, to Requests for Production, Set Two, within 20 days.

Plaintiff Isaac Aleman’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Sigma Pool Service and its attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $978.48 to Plaintiff’s attorney of record within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.