Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCP00047, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCP00047    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

On February 21, 2023, American Family Connect Property Casualty Insurance Co. (“Plaintiff”) filed a petition requesting the Court open an underinsured motorist discovery case so a motion to compel discovery responses could be filed pursuant to the authority conferred by California Insurance Code, § 11580.2(f)(1). On March 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s petition.

HISTORY: 

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel discovery responses. No opposition was filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff requests the Court issue an order to compel responses from Carlos Cruz (“Defendant”) to its Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff also requests 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 responses 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 for the production of 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).)

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).)

II.              MERITS

Request to Compel Responses & Deem RFA Admitted

Plaintiff submitted evidence they propounded their first set of Special Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents on Defendant’s counsel on November 14, 2022, via mail. (Calendo Decl. Exh. A.) Discovery responses were due on or around December 19, 2022. (Id. ¶ 5.) On December 22, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff sent correspondence via mail and email to Defendant’s counsel regarding lack of discovery responses and extending the deadline to January 6, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. B.) No verified response to either Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories or Requests for the Production of Documents has been received. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant’s initial response to Special Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents 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. 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 has prepared and filed two motions to compel discovery responses and Defendant has rendered no opposition. As such, the court awards sanctions to Plaintiff with respect to the motions to compel. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $865.65. This amount is based on three hours of attorney work in preparing the motion and an hour estimated for appearance at the April 14, 2023 hearing at a rate of $200 an hour, plus the $61.65 filing fee. ((200 x 4= 800) + 61.65 = $865.65). (Calendo Decl. ¶ 8.) The Court finds this amount reasonable given the similarity of the two motions.

--- 

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 

American Family Connect Property Casualty Insurance Co.’s Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents came on regularly for hearing on April 14, 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 MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE GRANTED. 

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $865.65.

PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 14, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles