Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV00141, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV00141 Hearing Date: March 21, 2025 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
southern
california gas company, Plaintiff, v. gagan singh, Defendant. |
Case
No.: 24NNCV00141 Hearing Date: March 21, 2025 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: Motion to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions |
On February 18,
2025, Plaintiff Southern California Gas Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a single
motion to compel initial responses from Defendant Gagan Singh (“Defendant”) for:
(1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; (2) Special Interrogatories
(“SROG”), set one; and (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.
Plaintiff also seeks and order deeming
Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted.
On November 5,
2024, Plaintiff served on Defendant the discovery requests. Defense counsel requested and Plaintiff granted
an extension such that responses were due by January 9, 2025. As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff states
that it has not received responses from Defendant.
On March 10,
2025, Defendant filed the opposition brief.
Defendant argues that his counsel Mehma Kaur had requested the
aforementioned extension and then went on extended leave from December 2024 to
March 14, 2025, but did not communicate the new discovery response date to the
firm such that Defendant did not timely respond by the deadline. Defendant argues that that had Plaintiff
emailed counsel Mehma Kaur, defense counsel would have responded promptly.
Defendant states he fully intends to respond to the discovery and that
sanctions should be denied.
On March 14,
2025, Plaintiff filed a reply brief, arguing that Defendant was properly served
through counsel—even if defense counsel was on leave. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the motions be
granted and for sanctions.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel
responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA are granted. As represented by Defendant, Defendant is in
the process of preparing responses.
Plaintiff
requests sanctions against Defendant and his attorney in the amount of $1,185
(= 2.5 hours for the motion and 2 anticipated hours for the reply, at $250/hour,
plus $60 in filing fees). The request is
granted. The requested sanctions are
reasonable in amount. Defendant
acknowledges that his failure to timely serve responses was due to his
counsel’s neglect and this motion prompted Defendant to prepare responses. Defendant and his counsel of record, jointly
and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,185 to
Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days
of notice of this order.
Plaintiff shall provide
notice of this order.
DATED: March 21, 2025 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court