Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV03609, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03609    Hearing Date: June 4, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F-43

Date: 6-4-24

Case # 23CHCV03609, Cooper v. Food 4 Less of California, Inc. et al.

Trial Date: None set

MOTION(S) TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Alpha Beta Company d/b/a Food 4 Less

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Betty Jean Cooper

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order Compelling Responses to Initial Discovery (x3), Sanctions

RULING: The motion is denied as moot. Sanctions are denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Betty Jean Cooper sued defendant Alpha Beta Company d/b/a Food 4 Less (erroneously named as “Food 4 Less of California, Inc.”), Kroger, and Does 1 through 50 on November 28, 2023.

Defendant Food 4 Less now moves to compel responses to its Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, and requests sanctions in connection with each motion.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)-(b).)  

Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Id., § 2031.300(a)-(b).)  

/ / /

Discussion

The substance of the motions is moot. The parties agree Plaintiff responded after Defendant filed its motion. (Hosharian Decl., ¶ 10; Feffer Decl., ¶ 4.)

The only matter that remains is sanctions.

Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [section 2023.010 et seq.] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel [initial responses] ... 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(c) [interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [requests for production].)

Plaintiff was substantially justified in failing to respond, and/or circumstances would make imposition of sanctions unjust. The Court notes that the only deficiency in Plaintiff’s responses was failure to provide a signed verification. Plaintiff’s counsel attests Plaintiff has health problems that prevented her from signing a verification, but she did so as soon as she could once her health improved, and Counsel had it promptly delivered to Defendant. (Hosharian Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends he kept Defendant’s counsel apprised of the situation, an assertion which Defendant’s counsel denies. (Hosharian Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; Feffer Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) This is immaterial; the Court’s finding is based on Plaintiff’s health condition and the relatively minor deficiency in her responses, neither of which Defendant refutes.

Sanctions are denied.