Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20STCV20848, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

SUBMITTING
ON THE TENTATIVE

The Court tries to post tentative rulings prior to any
hearing on many matters, but not all.  If
the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance, all counsel must confer and agree to do so.   Each counsel must contact the court and
advise they are submitting on the matter, that they have spoken to opposing
counsel who has indicated they too are submitting and will be calling the
court. All submitting counsel must call Dept A by 9:00 a.m. on the day of the
hearing and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling or in lieu
may indicate the party is submitting during calendar check-in and notice of the
ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative. If any party declines to
submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all
parties should appear at the hearing in person or remotely.

Case Number: 20STCV20848    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Asha Dusbabek (Plaintiff”) filed suit against Rentokil North America, Inc. (“Rentokil”), Western Exterminator Company (“Western”), and True Heat Solutions (“True Heat”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges Defendants were negligent in treating her property for pests, causing her eventual injury from pesticides. On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The TAC contains causes of action for (1) Negligence, (2) Breach of Express Warranty, and (3) Negligent Misrepresentation.  

Rentokil and now moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its (1) First Supplemental Interrogatories and (2) First Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents.

Western moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its (1) First Supplemental Interrogatories, (2) Requests for Production of Documents, and (3) Special Interrogatories (Set One).

HISTORY: 

On March 29, 2023, Rentokil and Western both filed their motions to compel responses. On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed her oppositions to each motion. Neither Rentokil nor Western filed replies.  

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Rentokil requests the Court issue an order compelling responses to its (1) First Supplemental Interrogatories and (2) First Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents.

Western requests the Court issue an order compelling responses to its (1) First Supplemental Interrogatories, (2) Requests for Production of Documents, and (3) Special Interrogatories (Set One).

Rentokil and Western both request the Court order sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $865.65 for each motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction.  (C.C.P. § 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.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand to produce documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (C.C.P. § 2031.300, (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, they 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. 

The 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 because of that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(c).) The same is true for a motion to compel a response to a demand to produce documents. (C.C.P. § 2031.300(c).)

II.              MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

Rentokil propounded their First Supplemental Interrogatories and First Supplemental Requests for the Production of Documents on January 10, 2023, via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Sullivan Decl. Exh. A.) Discovery responses were due on or before February 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) Rentokil states it has not received responses as of the filing of its motions.

Likewise, Western propounded their First Supplemental Interrogatories, Requests for the Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories on January 10, 2023, via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Sullivan Decl. Exh. A.) Discovery responses were due on or before February 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 4.) Western states it has not received responses as of the filing of its motions.

Plaintiff asserts she served answers to each of the discovery requests on February 13, 2023. (Nemotollahi Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff states the responses were served via email on counsel for Rentokil and Western and attaches the corresponding proofs of service and emails. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the Court deny the motions as frivolous and grant sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for each motion.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law requires sanctions if a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 & 2031.290.)

Here, Rentokil and Western have prepared and filed a total of five motions to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff has rendered an opposition to each showing responses were timely served. As such, the court awards sanctions to Plaintiff with respect to the motions to compel. Sanctions would be granted against each Rentokil and Western; however, Plaintiff failed to submit a declaration as to the amount of time spent on the oppositions or hourly rate. Without such a declaration, the Court declines to issue sanctions. 

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Rentokil North America, Inc. and Western Exterminator Company’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on April 21, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

RENTOKIL’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE DENIED. 

WESTERN’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO ITS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) ARE DENIED.

SANCTIONS ARE DENIED AS COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE A DECLARATION CONCERNING TIME SPENT AND HOURLY RATE.

RENTOKIL TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 21, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles