Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC05934, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC05934     Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant Ramirez’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $460.00.

Moving party to give notice.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of August 19, 2022.              [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 19, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Oscar Noriega Beceril (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez (“Defendant”) stemming from an automobile accident between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand.  On March 28, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On June 30, 2022, Defendant filed two Motions – (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  On July 28, 2022, the Court denied both Motions on the ground that Defendant’s discovery requests exceeded the number of requests permitted in a limited civil action, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a).  (7-28-22 Minute Order.)

On August 1, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (“Motion”) and a request for sanctions in the amount of $660.00.  On August 12, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion.

No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

III.            Discussion

A.    Motion to Compel

On March 31, 2022, Defendant propounded an initial set of written discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff.  (Mot. p. 10, Hong Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.)  Defendant did not receive any responses to the discovery requests or attempts to meet and confer, and, thus, filed two separate Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and to Requests for Production.  (Hong Decl. ¶¶ 7-10; Ex. B.)  On July 28, 2022, the Court denied both Motions because they exceeded the number of discovery requests permitted in limited civil jurisdiction and violated Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a).  (7-28-22 Minute Order; Ibid. at ¶ 11.)  On July 29, 2022, defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant “formally withdrew the initially served Request for Production, Set One…and propounded a replacement Request for Production of Documents, Set Two” which “reduced the number of requests to 10.”  (Hong Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. D.)  The total number of discovery requests, combining Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, is now thirty-three (33) requests.  (Ibid.)

On August 1, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  As of the date of the instant Motion, Defendant has not received any responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, “nor any communication or explanation whatsoever as to why the responses have not been forthcoming.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 13.)

Since the number of discovery requests propounded by Defendant now complies with Code of Civil Procedure § 94(a) and Defendant still has not received any responses, the Court GRANTS Defendant Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

B.    Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.  A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d).)

Here, Defendant seeks $660.00 in sanctions for the Motion based on an hourly rate of $200.00 per hour – $400 in attorney’s fees for two (2) hours of preparing the Motion, $200.00 for appearance fees for one (1) hour of attendance at the hearing, and $60 in filing fees.  (Hong Decl. ¶ 15.)

The Court finds $660.00 to be excessive and awards $460.00 in sanctions, based on 1.5 hours for preparation of the Motion, 0.5 hours for attendance at the hearing, and $60.00 in filing fees.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Defendant Ricardo Campos Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant Ramirez’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $460.00.

Moving party to give notice.