Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC01098, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01098     Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

Defendant Delgado is ordered to submit verified responses to the discovery requests, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $811.50 for each Motion, for a total of $1,623.00.

SERVICE: 

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

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

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 27, 2023.                           [   ] Late          [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 27, 2023.                           [   ] Late          [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Richard Delgado, aka Richard D. Delgado dba Delgado Sales and Services (“Defendant”) for open book account, account stated, reasonable value, breach of contract, and breach of guarantee.

            On April 7, 2021, based on Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered default against Defendant Delgado.  (4-7-21 Request for Entry of Default.)  Default judgment was entered on March 18, 2022, for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $9,698.36.  (3-18-22 Judgment.)

On August 15, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment.  On September 15, 2022, the Court noted that the Motion was filed in the wrong department and placed it off calendar.  (9-15-22 Minute Order.)

On September 22, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed another Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment in Department 25.  On November 1, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion and vacated default and default judgment.  (11-1-22 Minute Order.)

On November 10, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the two instant Motions to Compel Discovery:

1)     Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“MTC – Special”);

2)     Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“MTC – DPD”).

No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

a.      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 December 16, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of discovery, Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant.  (MTC Special – Frischer Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.¿1.)  On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant via U.S. mail reminding Defendant to submit responses to the discovery request.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3, Ex. 2.)  As of the date of the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not received any responses or communication regarding the discovery requests.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded special interrogatories on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses or communicated with Plaintiff regarding any extensions.  Although Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer with Defendant, it has tried to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Special 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 December 16, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of discovery, Demand for Production, Set One, on Defendant.  (MTC DPD – Frischer Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.¿1.)  On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant via U.S. mail reminding Defendant to submit responses to the discovery request.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3, Ex. 2.)  As of the date of the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not received any responses or communication regarding the discovery requests.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded a demand for production on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses or communicated with Plaintiff regarding any extensions.  Although Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer with Defendant, it has tried to resolve the issue informally.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Demand for Production, 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)).

Plaintiff requests the following sanctions as to each Motion:

Plaintiff requests $1,561.65 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate of $500.00 for one (1) hour of preparing the Motion and two (2) hours for appearing at the hearing, plus a filing fee of $61.65.  (MTC Special – Fischer Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)

Defendant requests $1,561.65 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate of $500.00 for one (1) hour of preparing the Motion and two (2) hours for appearing at the hearing, plus a filing fee of $61.65.  (MTC DPD – Fischer Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)

The Court grants both Motions to Compel, thus, the Court may impose sanctions.  However, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for the simple motions drafted by an attorney of 35 years to be excessive.  The Court finds $811.50 as to each Motion to be reasonable, based on half an hour to prepare the Motion and one (1) hour to appear at the hearing, plus filing fees of $61.65.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $811.50 for each Motion, for a total of $1,623.00.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

Defendant Delgado is ordered to submit verified responses to the discovery requests, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $811.50 for each Motion, for a total of $1,623.00.

Moving party to give notice.