Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV03683, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03683    Hearing Date: May 14, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Blue Rider Media Finance, LLC vs. War Paint Movie LLC, et al. Case No. 23SMCV03683

Hearing Date May 14, 2024

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Blue Rider Media Finance, LLC’s

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgement Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions; and

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgement Requests for Production and for Monetary Sanction.

On December 21, 2023 the Court entered the amended judgment in favor of Blue Rider Media Finance, LLC (“judgment creditor”) in the amount of $3,984,500 against War Paint Movie, LLC, 13 Films, LLC and Schenz (“judgment debtors”) upon stipulation. Coate Decls. ¶ 2, Ex. A. No portion of the stipulated judgment has been paid to date. Id. ¶ 2.

On February 14, 2024 judgment creditor served judgment debtors with post-judgement interrogatories and requests for production. Id. ¶¶ 3-5; Exs. B-D. Despite granting an extension request, judgment creditor has not received any responses. Id. ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. E. Judgment creditor brings the instant motions to compel responses to post-judgment interrogatories and requests for production and for monetary sanctions. No opposition was filed.

The discovery methods available to a judgment creditor to seek post-judgment discovery include written interrogatories and a demand for production of documents to judgment debtor. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020, 708.030.

Here, the post judgment interrogatories and requests for production were properly served on judgment debtors, who failed to respond. Judgment creditor is entitled to an order compelling judgment debtors to provide responses, without objections. Judgment debtors’ failure to serve timely responses is a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.020, 708.030, 2030.290 and 2031.300. Sanctions may be awarded even though no opposition to the motion was filed. CRC Rule 3.1348(a). However, the amounts sought are excessive.

As to the interrogatories, judgment creditor seeks $4,000, representing 4 hours incurred at Coate’s hourly rate of $550 and 4 hours at Brisbois’s hourly rate of $450. Coate Decl. ¶ 9. Coate spent in excess of two hours, including meeting and conferring with Schenz to grant an extension of time to respond to the requests, and in drafting the motion. Id. Coate anticipates spending another hour reviewing opposition papers, preparing for hearing and one hour participating in the hearing. Id. Brisbois spent in excess of two hours researching and drafting the motion and anticipates spending another two drafting reply papers. Id.

As to the requests for production, judgment creditor seeks $4,900, representing 4 hours at Coate’s hourly rate of $550 and 6 hours at Brisbois’s hourly rate of $450. Coate Decl. RPD ¶ 9.  The breakdown of Coate’s hours is the same as above; Brisbois spent three hours researching and drafting the motion and supporting documents and anticipates spending another three drafting reply papers. Id.

The sanctions are reduced due to the simplicity of the motions and because there is no requirement for a meet and confer, no basis to grant sanctions for that time, no opposition was filed (so no reply), and the motions will be heard jointly. Additionally, some of the work seems duplicative. As to each motion, sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,000, based on 2 hours of work at the hourly rate of $500 (the average of the two rates requested), a total of $2,000.

The motions are GRANTED. Judgment debtors to serve verified responses without objections and to pay sanctions of $2,000 within 20 days.