Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCP02759, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02759    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 61

Respondent Progressive Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and to Deem Matters Admitted against Petitioners Christopher Kimple, Janice Arglon, and Gregory Norwood, are GRANTED.

Sanctions are awarded against Petitioners and their counsel in the amount of $7,190.

Respondent to give notice.

I.                MOTIONS TO COMPEL & DEEM ADMITTED

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

Likewise, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).)

Respondent Progressive Insurance Company (Respondent) contends that it served interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production on Petitioners Christopher Kimple, Janice Arglon, and Gregory Norwood (Petitioners) on September 14, 2022, with responses due by October 18, 2022. (Bozoghlian Decl. ¶ 2.) Despite a later extension of time to provide responses by November 9, 2022, no responses have been provided. (Bozoghlian Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.)

Respondent has shown that discovery was served upon Petitioners, but no responses have been provided. If objection-free responses are not served by the date of hearing on these motions, the motions shall be GRANTED.

II.   SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, unless the court “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, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Respondent asks for $1,485.00 in connection with each motion, representing three hours of attorney work at $475 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee for each motion, for a total of $13,365.00 with these nine motions. (Bozoghlian Decl. ¶ 6.) This includes, however, nine hours spent reviewing an opposition that has never been filed, and further includes eight duplicative half-hour charges for appearing at the hearing on these motions. (Ibid.) Thus the maximum sanctions total is $7,190.00.

Sanctions are awarded against Petitioners and their counsel of record in the amount of $7,190.