Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV01908, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01908    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Stiffelman v. Rubin et al., Case No. 19SMCV01908
Hearing Date August 9, 2022
Plaintiff Stiffelman’s Discovery Motions (UNOPPOSED)

Stiffelman served Rubin with form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission on February 10, 2022. Rubin failed to respond, even after multiple meet and confer letters and an extension of time. Stiffelman moves to compel responses without objections, deem the requests for admission admitted and sanctions.

When a party fails to timely respond to written discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents, the propounding party can move for an order compelling a response without objections. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.290. If a party fails to serve timely responses to requests for admission, the requesting party can move for an order deeming the truth of any matter specified in the requests admitted. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2033.280.

Stiffelman provides a declaration from counsel stating Rubin failed to respond to properly served discovery. Capozzola declaration ¶¶4-9. There is no opposition. The declaration also requests $1,790 in attorney’s fees as sanctions. This figure includes 2 hours from Laquer billed at $225 an hour and half an hour billed by Capozzola at $290 an hour to prepare a reply. Id. ¶16. Since there was no opposition, there is no need for a reply. Additionally, excluding the reply, Stiffelman seeks 3 hours by Boyle at $200/hour, and 2 and .5 hours billed by Laquer and Capozzola, respectively. Five hours billed by three attorneys for a pro forma discovery motion that is unopposed is excessive. The court will reduce the award to three hours-- 1.5 hours from Boyle ($300), 1 hour from Laquer ($225) and .5 hours from Capozzola ($145), for a total award of $670. GRANTED.