Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 20TRCV00891, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00891    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          August 3, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Jack Goldberg

Responding Party:                  None

(1)   Motion to Compel Discovery Responses of Avalino Garcia

(2)   Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Joe Martinez

(3)   Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Gustalvo Arellano

(4)   Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Corey Emanuel

            The court considered the moving papers.  No oppositions were filed.

RULING

The motions to compel are GRANTED.  Moving party defendant Jack Goldberg is ordered to pay an additional $240 in filing fees.

Plaintiffs Avalino Garcia, Joe Martinez, Gustalvo Arellano, and Corey Emanuel are  ordered to respond without objections to defendant Jack Goldberg’s Form Interrogatories-General, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days.

Plaintiffs are ordered (1) to serve on defendant Jack Goldberg a verified response without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s request, within 20 days.

The court orders that each plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record Paul Chandler pay defendant Jack Goldberg $360 in monetary sanctions, within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

            On December 20, 2020, plaintiffs Avalino Garcia, Joe Martinez, Gustalvo Arellano, and Corey Emanuel filed a complaint against Jack Goldberg, Millee Goldberg, Jayem Enterprises, Inc., ACME Metals & Steel Supply, Inc., and the trustees of the Goldberg Family Trust Dated April 23, 1997 for (1) fraud in the inducement, (2) breach of oral contract, (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) promise made without intent to perform, (6) intentional misrepresentation, (7) negligent misrepresentation, and (8) fraud and deceit.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Interrogatories

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. 

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response.  CCP §2031.300.  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving 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 Jack Goldberg requests an order compelling plaintiffs Avalino Garcia, Joe Martinez, Gustalvo Arellano, and Corey Emanuel to serve responses without objections to defendant’s initial set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents.

The court notes that moving party improperly combined two motions into one.

Defendant served on each plaintiff the written discovery on December 28, 2021.  Responses were due by January 31, 2021.  After plaintiffs failed to serve responses, on March 3, 2022, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiffs’ counsel requesting responses.  On March 4, 2022, plaintiffs’ counsel requested a 30-day extension.  On March 31, 2022, plaintiffs’ counsel informed defense counsel that he was engaged in trial.  On May 4, 2022, defense counsel requested an update.  On May 9, 2022, in a telephone conversation, plaintiffs’ counsel expressed that the responses were not served because of an error by a previous paralegal and that he would have the responses served in the next few weeks.  On June 20, 2022, defense counsel attempted to meet and confer again requesting responses by June 22, 2022.  By the filing date of the motion on June 23, 2022, defense counsel had not received responses.

The court finds that the discovery requests were properly served on each plaintiff and that plaintiffs failed to serve responses.

The motions are thus GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states:  “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.” 

Defendant requests $1,160 in sanctions against each plaintiff and/or his counsel of record.  The court finds that $360 ($400/hr. x .75 hrs., filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against each plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney of record.  The court notes that the motions are duplicative of each other.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.