Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 19STCV35236, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35236    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 68

Jonathan Menyhart vs. Melissa Zee, et al., Case No. Case No. 19STCV35236

Motions to: 

(1) Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions;

(2) Deem Admitted the Requests for Admissions and for Monetary Sanctions; and

(3) Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party:       Defendant Melissa Zee (Defendant)

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jonathan Menyhart (Plaintiff)

When discovery is served, counsel is well advised to timely respond.  When the failure to timely respond is not justified, sanctions are in order.  This is such a case.

The complaint in this case was filed on October 2, 2019. The most recent amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2021. The causes of action asserted in the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint include Breach of Oral Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Libel on its Fact, and Slander per se.

Defendant filed the three discovery motions now before the Court on September 29, 2022, after Plaintiff failed to serve discovery responses by the agreed-upon August 1, 2022, deadline. (Delaplane Decl., ¶ 5.) Since Defendant filed the motions, Plaintiff served responses to each of Defendant’s requests in mid-November and is requesting that the Court not award sanctions to Defendant. In Defendant’s replies, Defendant is no longer seeking to compel responses to the discovery requests, but Defendant is still seeking sanctions of $830.00 from Plaintiff for each of the three motions.

Sanctions

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories, as well as for a monetary sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 et seq. CCP § 2030.290(b) and (c). Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Sanctions may be imposed against a party or his attorney, or both. (CCP § 2023.030.)

Monetary sanctions must be imposed, pursuant to CCP section 2023.010, “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admissions necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s requests for production of documents and form and special interrogatories were several months late. Plaintiff cannot account for the late service of these documents. As such, sanctions are appropriate.

As for the late responses to Defendant’s requests for admission, sanctions are mandatory and will be imposed.

For each of the three motions, Defendant’s attorney, Christopher Delaplane, stated that he spent 2.2 hours preparing the motion. (See each of Defendant’s Replies; Delaplane Decl., ¶ 2.) His firm’s standard billing rate is $350.00 per hour (2.2 hours times $350.00 is $770.00) plus the filing fee of $60.00, brings the total to $830.00. (See Delaplane Decl., ¶ 3.) For all three motions, this amounts to total sanctions of $2,490.00 to be imposed against Plaintiff.

Accordingly, sanctions will be awarded to Defendant in the amount of $2,490.00, $830 per motion, for Plaintiff’s untimely responses to Defendant’s three discovery requests.  Payment shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 45 days of the date of service of this Order.