Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 18SMCV00115, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18SMCV00115    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Baker et al. v. Maree, Inc., Case No. 18SMCV00115

Hearing Date February 21, 2024

Cross-Defendant L.A. Overhead Doors Motion to Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery (UNOPPOSED)

In this construction defect case cross-defendant L.A. Overhead Doors served written discovery on the Baker plaintiffs on August 22, 2023. L.A. Overhead provided three extensions, but did not receive timely responses. Tangonan decl. ¶¶12-19. After a December 14, 2024 IDC the court ordered the Bakers to respond by December 29 and to verify responses by January 5. 12/14/23 minute order. The Bakers served unverified responses on December 22, 2023, responding to every category of written discovery except the form interrogatories directed to Jenny Ljungberg Baker. Tangonan decl. ¶22.

L.A. Overhead has not received verifications or responses to the form interrogatories. Id. ¶26-27. LA Overhead moves to compel responses to all written discovery without objection, to deem the requests for admission admitted and for monetary sanctions. The Bakers have not opposed the motion, and there is no evidence in opposition to the representations in the Tangonan declaration.

The Tangonan declaration indicates defendants provided responses to most categories of written discovery, including requests for admission, within the time limit set at the IDC. The court will not compel further responses to those categories or deem the RFAs admitted. The court will, however, order responses to the form interrogatories, within 15 days without objection. The Bakers are to serve verifications for all responses already produced, within 10 days.

Because the Bakers, without justification, violated the IDC order to produce verifications by January 5, 2023 monetary sanctions are justified. L.A. Overhead requests sanctions equal to 10 hours of attorney work at $185 per hour, for time spent on this motion, preparing for and attending the IDC. Time spent in preparation for the IDC, including preparing the IDC statement, and attending the IDC is not recoverable. Likewise, moving party seeks 2.5 hours of anticipated time preparing a reply brief. Since there was no opposition, no reply brief was filed. The court would consider sanctions for the amount of time expended in the preparation of and hearing at this motion only. Counsel may provide supplemental evidence in this regard. The $60 requested filing fee is appropriate. GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.