Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC00745 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC00745, Date: 2022-12-14 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: 21STLC00745 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTIONS TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Cristina Roman Bahena

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010, 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Discovery (Not Further) – Form Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Cristina Roman Bahena is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, within fourteen (14) days’ notice of the Court’s order.

Motion to Compel Discovery (Not Further) – Special Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Cristina Roman Bahena is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, within fourteen (14) days’ notice of the Court’s order.

Motion to Compel Discovery (Not Further) – Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) filed by Cristina Roman Bahena is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers, without objections, within fourteen (14) days’ notice of the Court’s order.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $285.00 as to each Motion, for a total amount of $855.00.

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 December 11, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 11, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Jackeline Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Cristina Roman Bahena (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence. The action arose out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on or around January 28, 2019, between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand.

On June 20, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On July 8, 2022, based on the Stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial date to January 10, 2023, along with all discovery and motion cut-off dates. (7-8-22 Order.) On October 31, 2022, based on another Stipulation of the parties, the Court again continued the trial date to July 10, 2023, along with all discovery and motion cut-off dates. (10-31-22 Order.)

On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed the three instant Motions:

(1) Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC – Form”);

(2) Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC – Special”);

(3) Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) (“MTC – DPD”).

No oppositions have been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Form and Special 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 June 20, 2022, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due on July 22, 2022. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3.) Upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s request, defense counsel extended the deadline for responses to the discovery requests once until August 3, 2022, and again, until August 17, 2022. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) On August 25, 2022, and September 15, 2022, defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the overdue responses and also sent a meet and confer letter. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. C-D; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. C-D.) On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel and promised the responses by the following week. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E.) Defense counsel provided another extension until October 13, 2022. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. F; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. F.) On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel requested another extension. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. G; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. G.) As of the date of the instant Motions, Plaintiff has not submitted any responses. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 10; MTC Special – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 10.)

The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated that the form and special interrogatories were properly propounded on Plaintiff through her counsel and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not required to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the instant Motions, Defendant has provided several extensions to allow Plaintiff additional time to serve responses. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to the discovery requests.

For this reason, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

B. Demand 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 June 20, 2022, Defendant propounded Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) on Plaintiff. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due on July 22, 2022. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3.) Upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s request, defense counsel extended the deadline for responses to the discovery requests once until August 3, 2022, and again, until August 17, 2022. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) On August 25, 2022, and September 15, 2022, defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the overdue responses and also sent a meet and confer letter. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. C-D.) On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel and promised the responses by the following week. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E.) Defense counsel provided another extension until October 13, 2022. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. F.) On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel requested another extension. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. G.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not submitted any responses. (MTC DPD – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 10.)

The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated that a demand for production was properly propounded on Plaintiff through her counsel and Plaintiff has not provided any responses. Although Defendant was not required to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the instant Motion, Defendant has provided several extensions to allow Plaintiff additional time to serve responses. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to the discovery requests.

For this reason, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

C. 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)).

Defendant requests the following sanctions as to each Motion:

Defendant requests $510.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: one (1) hour to research and draft the Motion, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the Motion, and one (1) hour for travel to and from court, at a rate of $150.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 11.)

Defendant requests $510.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: one (1) hour to research and draft the Motion, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the Motion, and one (1) hour for travel to and from court, at a rate of $150.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 11.)

Defendant requests $510.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) as follows: one (1) hour to research and draft the Motion, one (1) hour to attend the hearing on the Motion, and one (1) hour for travel to and from court, at a rate of $150.00 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (MTC Form – Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 11.)

Here, the Court grants all three Motions to Compel, so sanctions may be awarded. The Court finds defense counsel’s request for sanctions as to each Motion to be excessive due to the fact that all three are now being heard on the same day so an hour for travel and an hour for argument for each motion is not necessary. The Court finds that 1.5 hours for each Motion is reasonable – so $225.00 for each – plus $60.00 filing fee for each, for a total of $855.00.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $285.00 as to each Motion, for a total amount of $855.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.