Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01943, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01943    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 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: 

CRDN of LA County North, Inc. (Plaintiff) brings this action against Carlos Serna (Defendant) alleging Defendant failed to pay $33,060.36 in compensation for textile and electronics restoration services provided by Plaintiff. (Compl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s Complaint states two causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts. Defendant has answered the Complaint in pro per.

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant’s initial response to their Form Interrogatories Set One. Plaintiff also requests $2,275 in sanctions be granted in connection with the motion. Defendant has filed no opposition to this motion. The Court notes that, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted. 

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.) 

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant with Form Interrogatories Set one via email. (Dijulio Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel states they received no timely responses. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding the interrogatories. (Id.)

On March 25, 2024, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and explained that he no longer had access to the email address to which the discovery demands were sent. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter provided Defendant with a hard copy of the demands and provided an extension to April 10, 2024 for Defendant to respond. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel states they have still not received any responses from Defendant as of filing this motion. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel initial response to their Form Interrogatories Set One is 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).) 

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,337.050 against Defendant for reasonable expenses in connection with the preparation, filing, and service of the instant motion. Plaintiff’s counsel declares their hourly rate is $350 and that counsel spent 4.5 hours in preparation of this motion and anticipates an additional two hours replying and attending a hearing on the motion. (Dijulio Decl. ¶ 6.) Based on its experience the Court finds this hourly rate reasonable. Further, Plaintiff’s anticipated expenses in replying do not apply because Defendant rendered no opposition. As such, Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is granted in amount of $760 ($350 x 2 hours + $60 filing fee), a reasonable sum given the nature of the motion.

--- 

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 

CRDN of LA County North, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on November 15, 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 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE IS GRANTED. 

RESPONSES ARE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.   

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $760 AS AGAINST DEFENDANT.

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 15, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles