Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 20TRCV00010, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00010    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          March 14, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant / Cross-Complainant Kamnuan Thongmanee

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant Shawn Ellis and

Plaintiffs John Ellis, Genevieve Ellis, Wendy Spadaro, Staci Haussner, and Robert Dobson

Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories and First Set of Inspection Demands

            The court considered the moving papers.

            Plaintiffs filed no opposition.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,320, within twenty days.

BACKGROUND

            On January 6, 2020, plaintiffs Shawn Ellis, John Ellis, Genevieve Ellis, Wendy Spadaro, Staci Haussner, and Robert Dobson filed a complaint against defendants Kamnuan Thongmanee and Arporn Thongmanee for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege they rented space, conducted business, or stored personal belongings at a rental property located at 2414 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (“the premises”). Plaintiffs allege defendants locked them out of the premises on July 17, 2019 and thereafter prevented plaintiffs from retrieving their personal property left inside. Plaintiffs allege their personal property was worth approximately $250,000, and by refusing to allow them access to retrieve it, defendants converted it to their own use.

            On February 20, 2020, defendants cross-complained against Shawn Ellis and Does 1 through 25 for breach of contract and indemnity.

            On February 10, 2023, defendant Kamnuan Thongmanee (hereafter individually as “defendant”) filed the instant motions to compel responses to his first set of interrogatories and demands for inspection.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  CCP §2030.290(b).  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Similarly, where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Where a party fails entirely to respond to discovery, the propounding party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant requests that the court compel plaintiffs to serve responses to defendant’s special interrogatories, set one and inspection demands, set one.

            Defendant contends he served identical sets of special interrogatories and inspection demands on all plaintiffs, for a total of twelve sets of discovery, on December 7, 2022. Defendant’s counsel emailed plaintiffs’ counsel on January 6, 2023 requesting responses and notifying him of defendants’ intent to move to compel if no responses were received. As of the date of the motion, February 10, defendant had received none.

Defendant’s motion is unopposed and granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses to defendant’s special interrogatories (set one) and inspection demands (set one), without objections, within ten days. See CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b) and 2031.300(a), (b).

Sanctions are mandatory. See CCP §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c). Defendant seeks $1,190 in fees for preparing the interrogatories motion and $2,082.50 for preparing the inspection demands motion, for a total of $3,272.50. Defendant’s counsel bases his demand on an estimated 45 minutes to prepare the interrogatories motion, 3.5 hours to prepare the inspection demands motion, and 2 hours to appear at the hearing. This is excessive with regard to the inspection demands motion and time to appear at the hearing.

The court finds 2 hours’ time appropriate for preparing what amount to form motions involving brief and straightforward discovery requests, and 1 hour for counsel to appear at the hearing. Defense counsel’s hourly billing rate of $595 on this straightforward matter is also excessive. The court awards 3 hours at a reasonable rate of $400/hour, for a total of $1,200. The court also awards filing fees of $120.

            Defendant seeks sanctions against plaintiffs individually, rather than their attorney of record. Defendant does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against plaintiffs personally. Sanctions are imposed against plaintiffs’ attorney of record only.

            Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,320, within twenty days.