Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC08034 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC08034, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC08034 Hearing Date: April 11, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES – FORM INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION;

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Paula Beauchamp-Brazile

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.80)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula Beauchamp-Brazile’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula Beauchamp-Brazile’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set One). Plaintiff is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula Beauchamp-Brazile’s Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted.

Moreover, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the three instant Motions is GRANTED in the total amount of $820.00.

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 April 6, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 6, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Carlos Garnett (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Lauren Alicia Brazile (“Lauren”) and Paula Beauchamp-Brazile (“Paula”) (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On May 24, 2022, the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, as Plaintiff did not appear at an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) hearing. (5-24-22 Minute Order.) On September 19, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, filed on August 25, 2022. (9-19-22 Minute Order.)

On October 28, 2022, Defendants Lauren and Paula filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On March 15, 2023, Defendant Paula filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC: Form”), scheduled for hearing on April 11, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On March 17, 2023, Defendant Paula filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) (“MTC: RFP”), scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On March 21, 2023, Defendant Paula filed the instant Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission Admitted (Set One) (“Motion to Deem”), scheduled for hearing on April 17, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On March 15, 17, and 21, Defendant Lauren also filed discovery motions as to Plaintiff. These motions are addressed in a separate order.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Form Interrogatories

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.)

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Paula served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One). (MTC Form – Murga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was November 29, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 10, 2023, requesting responses by January 17, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8, 11, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has not responded to the meet and cover letter and has not submitted any responses to the discovery request. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

Here, Defendant Paula has demonstrated that she has propounded form interrogatories on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, she has attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories (Set One.)

B. Requests for Production

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.020(a), 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Paula served Plaintiff with Request for Production (Set One). (MTC RFP – Murga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was November 29, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 10, 2023, requesting responses by January 17, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8, 11, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has not responded to the meet and cover letter and has not submitted any responses to the discovery request. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

Here, Defendant has demonstrated that she has propounded requests for production on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, she has attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production (Set One.)

C. Requests for Admission

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond. The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c)). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Paula served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One). (Mot. to Deem – Murga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was November 29, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 10, 2023, requesting responses by January 17, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8, 11, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has not responded to the meet and cover letter and has not submitted any responses to the discovery request. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

Here, Defendant Paula has demonstrated that she has propounded requests for admission on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, she has attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula’s Motion and deems the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted.

D. 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 because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Furthermore, §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300 authorize the Court to impose monetary sanctions if a party fails to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. With respect to requests for admission, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

Defendant requests the following sanctions:

Defense counsel’s billing rate is $160.00 per hour. (MTC Form – Murga Decl. ¶ 15; MTC RFP – Murga Decl. ¶ 15; Mot. to Deem ¶ 15.) Defense counsel calculates the total amount of time spent on the six discovery motions filed on behalf of Defendants Lauren and Paula. (Ibid.) Counsel spent one (1) hour attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, one (1) hour drafting a joint declaration for all discovery motions, and one (1) hour drafting the Notice of Motion, Motion, and Memorandum. (Ibid.) Counsel anticipates an additional three (3) hours to review oppositions, file replies, and prepare for and attend the hearings. (Ibid.) Furthermore, Counsel requests another $60.00 in filing fees per Motion. (Ibid.) Based on these calculations, Counsel requests $350.00 per discovery motion, for a total amount of $2,100.00 for all six (6) discovery motions. (Ibid.)

The Court finds the following calculation reasonable, at a billing rate of $160.00 per hour, for all three (3) Motions filed on behalf of Defendant Paula: three (3) hours to draft three Motions on behalf of Defendant Paula and one (1) hour to appear at the hearing held on all three (3) motions, plus $180.00 in filing fees for the three (3) Motions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS $820 in monetary sanctions for the three (3) discovery motions filed on behalf of Defendant Paula.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court GRANTS Defendant Paula Beauchamp-Brazile’s Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted.

Moreover, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the three instant Motions is GRANTED in the total amount of $820.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES – FORM INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION;

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Lauren Alicia Brazile

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.80)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren Alicia Brazile’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren Alicia Brazile’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set One). Plaintiff is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren Alicia Brazile’s Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted.

Moreover, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the three instant Motions is GRANTED in the total amount of $820.00.

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 April 6, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 6, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 28, 2022, Defendants Lauren and Paula filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On March 15, 2023, Defendant Lauren filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC: Form”), scheduled for hearing on April 11, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On March 17, 2023, Defendant Lauren filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) (“MTC: RFP”), scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On March 21, 2023, Defendant Lauren filed the instant Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission Admitted (Set One) (“Motion to Deem”), scheduled for hearing on April 13, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On March 15, 17, and 21, Defendant Paula also filed discovery motions as to Plaintiff. These motions are addressed in a separate order.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Form Interrogatories

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Lauren served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One). (MTC Form – Murga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was November 29, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 10, 2023, requesting responses by January 17, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8, 11, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has not responded to the meet and cover letter and has not submitted any responses to the discovery request. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

Here, Defendant Lauren has demonstrated that she has propounded form interrogatories on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, she has attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories (Set One.)

B. Requests for Production

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Lauren served Plaintiff with Request for Production (Set One). (MTC RFP – Murga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was November 29, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 10, 2023, requesting responses by January 17, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8, 11, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has not responded to the meet and cover letter and has not submitted any responses to the discovery request. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

Here, Defendant Lauren has demonstrated that she has propounded requests for production on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, she has attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production (Set One.)

C. Requests for Admission

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Lauren served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One). (Mot. to Deem – Murga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The deadline to respond was November 29, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 7.) Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 10, 2023, requesting responses by January 17, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 8, 11, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has not responded to the meet and cover letter and has not submitted any responses to the discovery request. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-14.)

Here, Defendant Lauren has demonstrated that she has propounded requests for admission on Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not obligated to meet and confer with Plaintiff, she has attempted to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren’s Motion and deems the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions (Set One) admitted.

D. Sanctions

Defendant requests the following sanctions:

The Court finds the following calculation reasonable, at a billing rate of $160.00 per hour, for all three (3) Motions filed on behalf of Defendant Lauren: three (3) hours to draft three Motions on behalf of Defendant Lauren and one (1) hour to appear at the hearing held on all three (3) motions, plus $180.00 in filing fees for the three (3) Motions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS $820 in monetary sanctions for the three (3) discovery motions filed on behalf of Defendant Lauren.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lauren Alicia Brazile’s Motion to Deem Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted.

Moreover, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the three instant Motions is GRANTED in the total amount of $820.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.