Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21BBCV00569, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00569    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

North Central District - Burbank

Department A

MP: Phillip Dudley (Plaintiff)

RP: Bea Uruchurtu (Defendant)

On October 24, 2022, Phillip Dudley (“Plaintiff”) filed three motions to compel responses from Bea Uruchurtu (“Defendant”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FI”); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SI”); and (2) Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”). The Court has not received opposition.

Background

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendant which were due on or before September 1, 2022. (Motion-FI, Decl. Cohen, ¶¶4,6; Motion-SI, Decl. Cohen, ¶¶4,6; Motion-RPD, Decl. Cohen, ¶¶4,6.) On or about August 29, 2022, Plaintiff granted Defense counsel’s request for an extension of time to respond to discovery with responses due on or before September 15, 2022.  (Motion-FI, Decl. Cohen, ¶7.; Motion-SI, Decl. Cohen, ¶7.; Motion-RPD, Decl. Cohen, ¶7.) On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Defense counsel inquiring about the failure to provide responses. (Motion-FI, Decl. Cohen, ¶7; Motion-SI, Decl. Cohen, ¶7; Motion-RPD, Decl. Cohen, ¶7.) As of October 24, 2022, Plaintiff asserts that he has not received responses to interrogatories from Defendant. (Motion-FI, Decl. Cohen, ¶8.; Motion-SI, Decl. Cohen, ¶8.; Motion-RPD, Decl. Cohen, ¶8.)

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production

A motion to compel responses to interrogatories may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 2030.290.) An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 2030.290 (a).)

Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel responses to the SI, FI, and RPD are granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (c).) Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose reasonable monetary sanctions which may include attorney’s fees, incurred because of the failure to comply with discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 (a).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant.    Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $910.00 for each motion for a total of $2,730 plus filing fees.  (Notice of Motion-FI, pg. 2; Notice of Motion-SI, pg. 2; Notice of Motion-RPD, pg. 2.)  Defendant filed no response and therefore did not provide any justification showing that an award of sanctions would be unjust, the request for sanctions is granted. The Court will award an aggregate of four hours at $350 an hour for $1,400 plus $180 (3 motions x $60 filing fees) for total sanctions of $1,580.  Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,580 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: December 9, 2022                                       ___________________________

                                                                                    F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                                    Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles