Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01822, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01822    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION 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: 

Darius Colbourn (Plaintiff) brings this action against the City of Los Angeles (the City). Plaintiff alleges that he was struck by a stop sign when the pole holding it became dislodged from the sidewalk at the corner of McCormick St. and Blakeslee Ave. Plaintiff alleges the City was aware of the deteriorating condition of the pole such that their failure to replace it constitutes negligence resulting in his injury.

The City now brings two motions to compel initial discovery responses. The City seeks responses to their Form and Special Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this 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 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 needs to 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

On January 16, 2024, the City propounded its discovery requests on Plaintiff via email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On February 20, 2024, counsel for the City granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension of time in which to respond with a deadline of March 5, 2024. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) On March 12, 2024, counsel for the City reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel as they had still not received responses. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel informed that responses would be forthcoming within a week. (Id.) Counsel for the City followed up once more on April 4, 2024, but received no reply. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) The City has clearly demonstrated service of its Form and Special Interrogatories and RFPD. The City has also demonstrated that Defendant has served no responses. As such, the City’s unopposed motions to compel 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. §§ 2030.300(d) & 2031.300(c)) As such, any other 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, counsel for the City has drafted and filed two motions to compel while Defendant has rendered no opposition. As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $800. This amount reflects 2 hours of attorney work at a rate of $200 per hour ($400 for each motion). (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 7.) Given the Court’s experience with motions of this type, this amount of sanctions appears appropriate to compensate the City in compelling responses. Sanctions are against Plaintiff and his counsel jointly and severally.

--- 

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 

The City of Los Angeles’ Motions to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on May 31, 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 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO THE CITY’S REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED.

RESPONSES ARE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $800. SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL.

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, THE CITY IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  May 31, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles