Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02983, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02983    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 4/12/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Evangelina Rivera (“Rivera” or “Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Maria Rincon’s (“Rincon” or “Plaintiff”) responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and imposing monetary sanctions, against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, in the amount of $561.65.  

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged personal injuries and property damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of an automotive collision that occurred on October 15, 2021. The Complaint alleges that Defendant ignored a solid red stop light, striking Plaintiff in a “t-bone” accident. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendant and Does 1–50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Negligence, and (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence. Subsequently, on January 3, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses in not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 [internal citations omitted].)

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

Defendant counsel attests that on January 2, 2024, Defendant propounded the first set of Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff, to which the responses were due on February 5, 2024. (Cadena Decl. ¶ 3.) However, no responses were received from Plaintiff by the due date. (Id. ¶ 4.) Subsequently, on March 8, 2024, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the late discovery responses and requested Plaintiff’s counsel to provides responses, without objection, by March 18, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) Despite the effort, no responses were received by March 18, 2024, and no extensions were requested by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.) Furthermore, Defendant’s counsel called and left a voicemail to Plaintiff’s counsel on April 12, 2024. (Id. ¶ 8.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Based on the records above, and given that no Opposition has been filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a).

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

B.     Request for Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) provides, in part, “Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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.”

As the Court has previously granted the Motion, it concludes that the mandatory monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) are applicable here.

Accordingly, in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work in preparing the Motion is $561.65, calculated at a reasonable hourly rate of $250 for two hours reasonably spent plus $61.65 for filing fees.

Therefore, Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objection, within 20 days of this order.

Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff and her attorney or record are ordered to pay $561.65, jointly and severally to Defendant within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.