Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01133, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01133    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOTICE:

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.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Kegham Tokatlian (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Oscar Cordova (“Defendant”) in connection with an alleged motor vehicle accident.

Before the court are several discovery motions brought by Defendant. Defendant requests the Court issue an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to his Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (“RFPD”). Defendant also requests sanctions be granted in the amount of $435 with respect to each motion.

Plaintiff has filed no opposition to these motions.

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).)

California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c) states, “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses & Deem RFA Admitted

Defendant propounded his Interrogatories and RFPD via e-mail on January 20, 2023. (Cadet Decl. ¶ 6, Exh 1.) Though Defendant does not explain as much, it appears the initial discovery was sent to the incorrect email address. (Id.) It appears Interrogatories and RFPD were propounded on the correct email address for Plaintiff’s counsel on February 22, 2023. (Cadet Decl. Exh. 2.) Responses were due March 26, 2023, though Defendant granted two extensions to May 1, 2023, and June 2, 2023. (Id.)  On August 24, 2023, Moving Parties sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter providing an extension for all discovery to April 28, 2023. (Cadet Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 2.) Defendant states he has received no discovery responses as of filing this motion. (Id.) 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD are GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions if 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 C.C.P. § 2030.290. As per C.C.P. § 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, Defendant prepared and filed several motions to compel, while Plaintiff has filed no oppositions. As such, the court awards sanctions to Defendant with respect to the motions to compel in the amount of $1,055. This amount is based on one hour of attorney work in preparing each motion and half an hour for appearing at the hearing at a rate of $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion (((250 x 3 = 750) + 250 x .5 = 125)) = 875 + 180 = 1,055.). (Cadet Decl. ¶¶ 8-10.)

--- 

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 

Oscar Cordova’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on October 27, 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: 

MOVING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO THEIR FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,055, PAYMENT TO DEFENSE WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

ALL EXISTING DATES TO REMAIN.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  October 27, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles