Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21STCV43376, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43376 Hearing Date: November 3, 2023 Dept: A
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT A
TENTATIVE RULING
NOVEMBER 3, 2023
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 21STCV43376
| MP: | N.R. a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, Janae De La Jara (Plaintiff) |
| RP: | None |
The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”
Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.
ANALYSIS:
N.R. a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, Janae De La Jara (“Plaintiff”) brings his action against New Horizon Foursquare Church (“New Horizon”), International Church of The Foursquare Gospel, Stanley Taylor (“Taylor”), and Adam Stafford (“Stafford”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges she was sexually molested/assaulted by Stafford while he served as an employee for New Horizon. Plaintiff further alleges that Taylor, then pastor for New Horizon, was direct supervisor of Stafford and was aware Stafford was a potential danger to children. (Compl. ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition of Taylor. Taylor has filed no opposition to the motion.
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (C.C.P. § 2025.450(a).)
Here, Plaintiff counsel states they notified the deposition of Taylor on August 28, 2023, to be held on October 11, 2023. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 2.) Counsel for Taylor thereafter informed that he had moved to St. George, Utah and his counsel would need to confirm availability for the October 11 deposition. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to communicate with Taylor’s counsel as to his availability several times thereafter. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 4.) Despite numerous reassurances from a paralegal for Taylor’s counsel, Plaintiff has received no communication regarding the Taylor deposition. (Kelly Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.) Plaintiff’s meet and confer communication has gone without response despite confirmation of its receipt. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff demonstrates that defendants failed to proceed with the duly noticed depositions and that she met and conferred with Taylor’s counsel regarding the nonappearance. (C.C.P. § 2024.450(a), (b)(2).) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel the deposition of Stanley Taylor is GRANTED.
If a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court 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. § 2025.450(g)(1).)
Plaintiff’s counsel states their office has expended three hours preparing this motion to compel at the hourly rate of $750. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,250. Plaintiff’s estimated time in reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply is inapplicable as the motion is unopposed. Sanctions are awarded jointly and severally against Taylor and his counsel.
---
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
N.R. a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, Janae De La Jara’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Stanley Taylor came on regularly for hearing on November 3, 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:
THE MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF STANLEY TAYLOR IS GRANTED.
SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,250 AS AGAINST STANLEY TAYLOR AND HIS COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.
UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 3, 2023 _______________________________
F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH
CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT
A
TENTATIVE
RULING
NOVEMBER 3,
2023
MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 21STCV43376
MP: |
N.R. |
RP: |
None |
The
Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. Pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”
Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.
ANALYSIS:
N.R.
a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, Janae De La Jara
(“Plaintiff”) brings his action against New Horizon Foursquare Church (“New
Horizon”), International Church of The Foursquare Gospel (“International”),
Stanley Taylor (“Taylor”), and Adam Stafford (“Stafford”) (collectively
“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges she was sexually molested/assaulted by
Stafford while he served as an employee for New Horizon. Plaintiff further
alleges that Taylor, then pastor for New Horizon, was direct supervisor of
Stafford and was aware Stafford was a potential danger to children. (Compl. ¶
3.)
Plaintiff now moves to
compel International’s answers to her Special Interrogatories (Set One) and
Requests for Production (“RFPD”) (Set Two).
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, he or she
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 as a result of that
conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)
II.
MERITS
Request to Compel Responses
& Deem RFA Admitted
Plaintiff propounded her
first set of Special Interrogatories, and Second Set of RFPD via eservice on
International’s counsel on August 24, 2023. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 2.) Responses
were due on September 26, 2023; however, Plaintiff’s counsel reconceived no
responses. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 3.) On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a
meet and confer letter to International which also received no response despite
is receipt being confirmed. (Kelly Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)
Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel International’s initial responses to her Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and RFPD (Set Two) are GRANTED.
Sanctions
As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires
sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 & 2031.290.) As such, any monetary
sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per Code
of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. As per Code of Civil Procedure 2023.010(d),
failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.
Further, it is customary to grant sanctions
where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file
an opposition. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1348(a).)
Here,
Plaintiff prepared and filed a motion to compel, while International has filed
no opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel states their office has expended three hours
preparing this motion to compel at the hourly rate of $750. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 8.)
Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,250. Plaintiff’s
estimated time in reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply is
inapplicable as the motion is unopposed. Sanctions are awarded jointly and
severally against International and its counsel.
---
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
N.R. a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad
litem, Janae De La Jara’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing
on November 3, 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:
THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO) ARE
GRANTED.
SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AS
AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL AND ITS COUNSEL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,250. PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN
30 DAYS.
UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS
TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE:
November 3, 2023 _______________________________
F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles
LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH
CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT
A
TENTATIVE
RULING
NOVEMBER 3,
2023
MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 21STCV43376
MP: |
N.R. |
RP: |
None |
The
Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. Pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”
Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.
ANALYSIS:
N.R.
a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, Janae De La Jara
(“Plaintiff”) brings his action against New Horizon Foursquare Church (“New
Horizon”), International Church of The Foursquare Gospel (“International”),
Stanley Taylor (“Taylor”), and Adam Stafford (“Stafford”) (collectively
“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges she was sexually molested/assaulted by
Stafford while he served as an employee for New Horizon. Plaintiff further
alleges that Taylor, then pastor for New Horizon, was direct supervisor of
Stafford and was aware Stafford was a potential danger to children. (Compl. ¶
3.)
Plaintiff now moves to
compel International’s answers to her Special Interrogatories (Set One) and
Requests for Production (“RFPD”) (Set Two).
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, he or she
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 as a result of that
conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)
II.
MERITS
Request to Compel Responses
& Deem RFA Admitted
Plaintiff propounded her
first set of Special Interrogatories, and Second Set of RFPD via eservice on
International’s counsel on August 24, 2023. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 2.) Responses
were due on September 26, 2023; however, Plaintiff’s counsel reconceived no
responses. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 3.) On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a
meet and confer letter to International which also received no response despite
is receipt being confirmed. (Kelly Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)
Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel International’s initial responses to her Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and RFPD (Set Two) are GRANTED.
Sanctions
As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires
sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 & 2031.290.) As such, any monetary
sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per Code
of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. As per Code of Civil Procedure 2023.010(d),
failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.
Further, it is customary to grant sanctions
where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file
an opposition. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1348(a).)
Here,
Plaintiff prepared and filed a motion to compel, while International has filed
no opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel states their office has expended three hours
preparing this motion to compel at the hourly rate of $750. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 8.)
Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,250. Plaintiff’s
estimated time in reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply is
inapplicable as the motion is unopposed. Sanctions are awarded jointly and
severally against International and its counsel.
---
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
N.R. a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad
litem, Janae De La Jara’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing
on November 3, 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:
THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO) ARE
GRANTED.
SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AS
AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL AND ITS COUNSEL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,250. PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN
30 DAYS.
UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS
TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE:
November 3, 2023 _______________________________
F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles
LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH
CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT
A
TENTATIVE
RULING
NOVEMBER 3,
2023
MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 21STCV43376
MP: |
N.R. |
RP: |
None |
The
Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. Pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”
Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.
ANALYSIS:
N.R.
a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad litem, Janae De La Jara
(“Plaintiff”) brings his action against New Horizon Foursquare Church (“New
Horizon”), International Church of The Foursquare Gospel (“International”),
Stanley Taylor (“Taylor”), and Adam Stafford (“Stafford”) (collectively
“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges she was sexually molested/assaulted by
Stafford while he served as an employee for New Horizon. Plaintiff further
alleges that Taylor, then pastor for New Horizon, was direct supervisor of
Stafford and was aware Stafford was a potential danger to children. (Compl. ¶
3.)
Plaintiff now moves to
compel International’s answers to her Special Interrogatories (Set One) and
Requests for Production (“RFPD”) (Set Two).
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, he or she
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 as a result of that
conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)
II.
MERITS
Request to Compel Responses
& Deem RFA Admitted
Plaintiff propounded her
first set of Special Interrogatories, and Second Set of RFPD via eservice on
International’s counsel on August 24, 2023. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 2.) Responses
were due on September 26, 2023; however, Plaintiff’s counsel reconceived no
responses. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 3.) On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a
meet and confer letter to International which also received no response despite
is receipt being confirmed. (Kelly Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)
Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel International’s initial responses to her Special
Interrogatories (Set One), and RFPD (Set Two) are GRANTED.
Sanctions
As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires
sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel a response. (C.C.P. §§ 2031.300 & 2031.290.) As such, any monetary
sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per Code
of Civil Procedure § 2030.290. As per Code of Civil Procedure 2023.010(d),
failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.
Further, it is customary to grant sanctions
where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file
an opposition. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1348(a).)
Here,
Plaintiff prepared and filed a motion to compel, while International has filed
no opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel states their office has expended three hours
preparing this motion to compel at the hourly rate of $750. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 8.)
Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $2,250. Plaintiff’s
estimated time in reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply is
inapplicable as the motion is unopposed. Sanctions are awarded jointly and
severally against International and its counsel.
---
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
N.R. a minor individual, by and through her guardian ad
litem, Janae De La Jara’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing
on November 3, 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:
THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET TWO) ARE
GRANTED.
SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AS
AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL AND ITS COUNSEL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,250. PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN
30 DAYS.
UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS
TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE:
November 3, 2023 _______________________________
F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles