Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01302, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01302    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    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.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify 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 argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club as subrogee of Robert and Ilene Dickman (Plaintiff) brings this action against Smart Construction and Design (Defendant) for claims arising out of a fire which destroyed the home of subrogees. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant permitted the negligent use of a blow torch while repairing the roof of subrogees house. The roof subsequently caught fire and resulted in Plaintiff indemnifying subrogees in the amount of $722,682.72. Defendant is a sole proprietorship of Gil Arava, who appears in this matter in pro per.

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’s response to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Plaintiff has filed no opposition to these motions.

Defendants also request $750 in sanctions be granted in connection with each of the three 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. 

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff propounded their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD on Defendant via mail and e-mail. (Terhufen Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  On March 6, 2024, Defendant apparently sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting an extension on the discovery requests. (Terhufen Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel permitted an extension to March 23, 2024. (Id.) On April 8, 2024, having received no responses, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant. (Id.) As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has received no discovery responses.  (Terhufen Decl. ¶ 4.)

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

Sanctions

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).) 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 has drafted and filed three motions while Defendant has rendered no opposition. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $930 against Defendant. This amount reflects 3 hours of attorney work at a rate of $250 per hour, as well as the $60 filing fee for each motion. (Terhufen Decl. ¶ 6.) Given the Court’s experience with motions of this type, and in light of the fact the motions were unopposed, this sanction amount appears appropriate to compensate Plaintiff’s efforts in compelling responses.

--- 

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 

Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club as subrogee of Robert and Ilene Dickman’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on August 16, 2024, 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 PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED. 

FURTHER RESPONSES DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.   

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $930 AS AGAINST DEFENDANT.

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.