Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00233, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00233    Hearing Date: September 6, 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: 

Alex Avi (Plaintiff) brings this action against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges he was injured while as a passenger in a bus operated by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s employee negligently operated the bus such that Plaintiff was thrown to the ground and sustained significant injury.

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s initial response to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD). Plaintiff has filed no opposition to these motions. Defendant also requests $500 in sanctions be granted in connection with each of the three motions.

Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have filed two declarations in connection with this motion but have filed no actual opposition. These declarations inform the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel has lost all contact with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s counsel intends to move to be relieved. A motion to be relieved as counsel is scheduled to be heard on November 1, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel asks that present motions be continued until after that hearing. (Harirchi Decl. ¶ 4.)

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. 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

II.                 MERITS

Request to Compel Responses

On May 7, 2024, Defendant’s counsel served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and RFPD on counsel for Plaintiff via email. (Wainfeld Decl. Exh. A.) On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested a two-week extension, which was granted. (Wainfeld Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. B.) On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested another extension, explaining that they were unable to get a hold of their client. (Wainfeld Decl. Exh. C.) Defendant’s counsel advised this request would not be granted. (Id.) Defendant remains without responses to any discovery as of filing these motions. (Wainfeld Decl. ¶ 4.)

The Court denies the Plaintiff’s request to continue the motions until after Plaintiff’s counsel request to be relieved as counsel is heard.  To do so would be unfair to the Defendant who did not initiate this lawsuit.  Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ 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, Defendant has drafted and filed three motions while Plaintiff has rendered no opposition. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,680. These sanctions are assessed as against Plaintiff only, given the representations of Plaintiff’s counsel that he has been entirely unresponsive. This amount reflects 6 hours of attorney work at a rate of $250 per hour plus filing fees of $60 for three motions. (Wainfeld Decl. ¶ 5.) Given the Court’s experience with motions of this type, this amount of sanctions appears appropriate to compensate Defendant’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 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery came on regularly for hearing on September 6, 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 DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE GRANTED. 

FURTHER RESPONSES DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.   

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,680 AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF.

SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  September 6, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles