Judge Joseph Lipner, Case Number: 22STCV28798, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Jackline Hilson seek to compel Plaintiffs Elizabeth Del Real and Rebecca Guardado’s to provide responses, without objections, and documents where applicable, to first sets of Requests for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories, from Defendant Jackline A. Hilson. She also seeks $1410 in sanctions against each plaintiff and her counsel, for each form of discovery.

Defendant’s motions to compel responses from Plaintiffs Elizabeth Del Real and Rebecca Guardado to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs Elizabeth Del Real and Rebecca Guardado to provide responses without objections, and responsive documents where applicable, to their respective discovery requests within 30 days of the date of this order.

The Court further awards monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant Jackline A. Hilson and jointly and severally against Plaintiffs Elizabeth Del Real and Rebecca Guardado in the reduced amount of $1800 total. Plaintiffs must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Defendant Jackline A. Hilson within 30 days of the date of this order.

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Del Real (“Real”) and Rebecca Guardado (“Guardado”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Jackline A. Hilson (“Defendant”), Ora Lee Day aka Sandi Day; Union Realty Co dba Century 21 Union; and Does 1 through 20, alleging causes of action for specific performance, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

On July 31, 2023,[1] Defendant filed the instant motions to compel responses from Real and Guardado to first sets of Requests for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories, for each of the Plaintiffs. No opposition has been filed.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(b), the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (Id., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (Id., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Defendant contends she served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiffs on June 13, 2023. (Park Decls., ¶ 2; Exs. A.) Defendant has not received any responses from Plaintiffs. (Park Decls., ¶ 3.) The Court therefore will grant Defendant’s motions to compel.

The Court will also award monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1800, which represents four hours of Defendants’ counsel’s time. This covers 3 hours to prepare three motions (one for each type of discovery). Moreover, there was no opposition, no reply brief, and a one-hour appearance at the hearing will cover all motions.

[1] Defendant appears to have filed a duplicate motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One from Plaintiff Guardado on August 1, 2023. It is unclear why this was done, so the Court will instead consider the motion filed on July 31, 2023.