Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00390, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00390    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

ALLEGATIONS:

We buy Houses, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Michael Sapp ("Defendant") as an individual and in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Cheryl Ann Lacara, alleging that Defendant contracted to sell property in North Hollywood to Plaintiff and then later refused.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 27, 2022 alleging two causes of action: (1) Specific Performance and (2) Breach of Contract.  

PRESENTATION:

Four discovery motions are presently before the Court. Plaintiff moves for orders to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted the truth of matters in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (“RFA”). Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or its attorneys of record in connection with each motion in the amount of $810.00.   

These motions were all filed November 22, 2022; no opposition has been filed as to any motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)  

Similarly, a party must respond to admissions and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (C.C.P. § 2030.250(a).) If a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for a Court order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280.) 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. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(a); 2033.280(a).) For untimely responses to Requests for Admission, the Court shall deem the Requests for Admission admitted unless the responding party serves a code compliant response prior to the hearing. (C.C.P. §§ 2033.280(c).)

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).) 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 Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).) The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. (Ibid.)

II.        MERITS

Plaintiff submitted evidence it propounded its first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for the Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions on Defendant on Oct 15, 2022, via email to Mike Chappars, Esq. (Poindexter Decl. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that it received no responses to the request as of time of filing, while responses were due as per C.C.P. § 2030.260 on November 15, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4.) No requests for extension have been issued by the Defendant. (Ibid. at ¶ 4).                                                          

As of the date of this hearing, Defendant has not rendered responses to any of Plaintiff’s motions. Defendant did not file any opposition to these motions within nine days of the hearing as per C.C.P. § 1005(b). No extension request was made as per C.C.P. § 2030.260(a).

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant’s initial response to Form Interrogatories (set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and request for Documents (Set One) are granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem admitted facts contained in Request for Admissions is also granted.

III.       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 and 2031.290.) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290. It is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel and the other party fails to file an opposition. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)  

Plaintiff has prepared and filed three motions to compel, while Defendant has rendered no opposition. As such the court awards sanctions to Plaintiff with respect to the three motions to compel in the amount of $1,620 based on 1.2 hours of attorney work per motion at $400 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee per motion ($375 x 1.2 = 450 + 60 = $510) x 3 = $1,530). The additional 0.8 hour estimated by Defendant’s attorney in preparing a reply for each motion is not present in the above calculation given that no oppositions were filed.

Whether or not responses to Request for Admission (Set One) are provided by the hearing date, the Court awards sanctions to Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $510, representing the 1.2 hours of attorney work at $400 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee ($375 x 1.2 = 450 + 60 = $510). The additional 0.8 hour estimated by Defendant’s attorney in preparing a reply is not present in the above calculation given that no opposition was filed.

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

Plaintiff We Buy Houses, LLC's Motions to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories (Set One), to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set One), to Compel Response to Requests for Documents (Set One), and to Deem RFA Matters Admitted  came on regularly for hearing on January 13, 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 ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,040.00.  PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  January 13, 2023                              

_______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles