Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 22STCV09663, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF RICARDO RIVERA’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT IERVOLINO

The motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents all set one are GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to serve further verified responses without objections within 20 days after the date of this order. Responsive documents must also be served within 20 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $3,390 are imposed jointly and severally on Defendant and Defendant's Counsel of Record. Sanctions are payable within 20 days after the date of this order.

The motion to compel the deposition of Defendant will be continued to a date after the scheduled deposition of Defendant. The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing so that a continued date may be set.

Plaintiff to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Plaintiff Ricardo Rivera alleges that defendant Andrea Iervolino induced Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s company a large sum of money in exchange for cryptocurrency tokens that Defendant knew could never be issued. Defendant has promised to repay Plaintiff but has not done so. Plaintiff sues to recover the amounts owed to him.

On April 18, 2023, Defendant demurred to the first, second, and fifth causes of action in the first amended complaint. On July 31, 2023, the Court overruled the demurrer.

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff moved to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. Plaintiff also moved to compel the deposition of Defendant.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any objection to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff propounded the first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on July 7, 2023. (Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶ 6, Ex. B.) Plaintiff subsequently extended the deadline to respond to September 8, 2023. (Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶7.) Plaintiff then again extended the deadline to September 29, 2023. (Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶ 8.) On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff extended the deadline to November 23, 2023. (Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶ 9.)

On January 29, 2024, Defendant served written responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Reply Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶ 4, Ex. 3 to Ex. 6.) These responses are unverified and contain objections.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and Defendant must serve verified responses, without objections, within 20 days of this order.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories 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, subd. (c).)

Here, the Court does not find that Defendant acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Plaintiff’s counsel requests attorney fees for 15 hours of work at $565.00 per hour and 1 hour of work at $925 per hour. (Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff does not state the amount of time she spent on each of the four motions. Because of the straightforward nature of the motions, the Court awards four hours of attorney time at $565 per hour for a total of $2,260.00.

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, 2030.240, and 2031.280.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Because the responses Defendant served are untimely and because Defendant has not moved for relief on the grounds of result, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, Defendant has waived any objection to the document requests. Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and Defendant must serve verified responses, without objections, within 20 days of this order.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, the Court does not find that Defendant acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Plaintiff’s counsel requests attorney fees for 15 hours of work at $565.00 per hour and 1 hour of work at $925 per hour. (Decl. Consoli-Tiensvold, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff does not state the amount of time she spent on each of the four motions. Because of the straightforward nature of the motion, the Court awards 2 hours of attorney work at $565 per hour for a total of $1,130.00.

The Court grants the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. The Court also awards sanctions in the amount of $3,390.00.