Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV01314 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections as well as all responsive documents with respect to Defendant Hollywood Chamber of Commerce’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence, premises liability, liability for dangerous condition of public property, and public employee liability arising from a trip and fall incident which took place in July 2019. Plaintiff Anna Nguyen filed her Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and the Hollywood Historic Trust on January 10, 2020

On June 30, 2022, Defendant the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce (“HCC”) filed the instant motions to compel initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and to deem Requests for Admissions admitted. Plaintiff has not opposed these motions.

HCC originally propounded its FROGs, RPDs, and RFAs on Plaintiff on April 12, 2022. Responses were originally due on May 13, 2022. To date, HCC has not received any responses to these discovery requests.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (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.

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel 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(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

HCC is entitled to order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to RPDs. Defendant supports its claims with a declaration from Counsel. HCC propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff on April 12, 2022. (Esposito Decl., ¶4.) After receiving no responses, HCC’s counsel sent multiple emails to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office inquiring about the responses. (Id., ¶¶5-7.) To date, Plaintiff has not served any discovery responses or responded to HCC’s counsel’s emails. (Id., ¶7.) Because Plaintiff has not provided responses to HCC’s discovery requests, the motion is granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to HCC’s discovery request. HCC requests $1,072.50 in sanctions total for 4.5 hours of attorney time drafting three motions plus 1 hour appearing for the motions at a rate of $195 per hour.

Since Defendant has put in one request for sanctions covering three motions (two of which are set to be heard tomorrow), the Court will address the issue of sanctions tomorrow.