Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01624, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01624 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: F43
Dept.
F43
Date:
01-10-25
Case
# 23CHCV01624, Ayala v. Pitchess Detention Center, et al.
Trial
Date: None set.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant County of Los Angeles
RESPONDING
PARTY: No response has been filed.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Order
compelling responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two and $750.00 in
sanctions.
RULING: Motion is granted.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff
Juan Ayala (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants County of Los
Angeles (Defendant), City of Los Angeles, State of California, Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department, and Pitchess Detention Center on June 5, 2023,
alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. On August 28, 2024, Defendant propounded on
Plaintiff Special Interrogatories, Set Two numbers 35-50. The parties agreed to three deadline
extensions for responses. Plaintiff
never served responses.
Defendant
filed this motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two on
December 4, 2024. No opposition has been
filed.
MEET
AND CONFER
A
motion to compel interrogatory responses must include a declaration stating
facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues
mentioned in the motion before filing.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2016.040.)
After
Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter on October 4, 2024,
Plaintiff’s counsel replied on October 7, 2024 stating Plaintiff would serve
objection-free responses by October 21, 2024.
(Declaration of Kari C. Kadomatsu, ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. B, C.) On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent
responses to Defendant’s other discovery requests but not Special
Interrogatories, Set Two. (Kadomatsu
Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. D.) That same day,
Defendant’s counsel asked Plaintiff’s counsel to send responses by October 26,
2024. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated the responses were
late due to an unforeseen medical emergency, and Defendant’s counsel agreed to
extend Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to November 1, 2024. (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not submit responses by
November 1, 2024. On November 5, 2024,
Defendant’s counsel sent an email advising he planned to file a motion to
compel. (Kadomatsu Dec., ¶ 7, Exh.
E.) That same day, counsel spoke on the
phone, and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to serve objection-free responses no
later than November 19, 2024. (Ibid.) After not receiving responses by the November
19 deadline, Defendant’s counsel sent emails on November 25, 2024 and December
2, 2024 regarding Plaintiff’s failure to respond and informed Plaintiff’s
counsel that Defendant would file a motion to compel and request
sanctions. (Kadomatsu Dec., ¶ 8, Exh.
F.) Plaintiff has yet to serve
responses.
ANALYSIS
A propounding party may move to compel responses to
special interrogatories where the responding party fails to provide any
responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The propounding party must show that the
interrogatories were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no
response has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d
902, 905-906.) The responding party must
serve responses within 30 days after the interrogatories are served or
according to an agreed upon deadline extension.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270.) Failing to respond within these time limits
waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (a).)
Defendant has shown that it properly served Plaintiff
on August 28, 2024. Plaintiffs did not
serve responses by the original September 27, 2024 deadline or any of
Defendant’s subsequent deadline extensions.
As of December 4, 2024, Plaintiff has not served responses.
Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve
code-compliant, objection-free responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories,
Set Two.
Sanctions
The Court may impose sanctions against any party who
“unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses 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.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
Defendant requests $750.00 in monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.
Defendant’s counsel, Kari C. Kadomatsu, charges an hourly rate of
$250.00. (Kadomatsu Dec., ¶ 10.) The request includes the following: (1) 1
hour preparing the motion—$250.00; and (2) 2 hours to respond and to attend the
hearing—$500.00. (Ibid.)
The Court finds the hourly rates are reasonable, and
the proposed time is unreasonable.
Because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the time Mr. Kadomatsu
anticipates spending replying to an opposition is reduced to 0 hours.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request for
sanctions in the reduced amount of $500.00: (1) 1 hour preparing this motion; and
(2) 1 hour attending the motion hearing.
ORDER
Defendant County of Los Angeles’s motion to compel
responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is granted.
Defendant County of Los Angeles to give notice.