Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08458 2022-12-08 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**

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND DEMAND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is CONTINUED to February 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the Special Interrogatories on Defendant and report to the Court whether Defendant has responded to the discovery requests within the statutorily required period. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents is CONTINUED to February 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the Demand to Produce Documents on Defendant and report to the Court whether Defendant has responded to the discovery requests within the statutorily required period. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Jake Lawrence Udell (“Defendant”) for conversion and money had and received. On March 8, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Determine Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documented Deemed Admitted (“Motion”). On December 5, 2022, the Court granted the Motion and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $340.00. (12-5-22 Minute Order.)

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“MTC Special”)[1];

2) Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents (Set One) (“MTC DPD”).

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof that Defendant had been served with the moving papers by electronic transmission. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof that Defendant had also been served with the moving papers by mail.

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.)

Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set One), on Defendant on May 9, 2022. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Verified responses were due by June 13, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant and asked for responses to the discovery propounded on Defendant by July 22, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. B.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Defendant has not provided any responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has properly served Defendant with the moving papers and Defendant has failed to respond to the Special Interrogatories. However, the Court notes that although the follow-up letter and the moving papers were served by mail, the Special Interrogatories were improperly served on the self-represented Defendant by electronic mail. (MTC Special p. 14.) Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 authorizes service of documents by electronic service (service by e-mail) in certain enumerated circumstances. Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides, “[f]or cases filed on or after January 1, 2019, if a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is authorized” only: (1) “if a party . . . has expressly consented to receive electronic service in that specific action”, (2) “if . . . the court has ordered electronic service on a represented party or other represented person under subdivision (c) or (d)”, or (3) “if . . . the document is served electronically pursuant to the procedures specified in subdivision (e)”, that is, electronic service is made upon a party who is represented by counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), (c), (d), (e).)

For this reason, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the Special Interrogatories on Defendant.

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.)

Here, Plaintiff served Demand to Produce Documents (Set One), on Defendant on May 9, 2022. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Verified responses were due by June 13, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant and asked for responses to the discovery propounded on Defendant by July 22, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. B.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Defendant has not provided any responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has properly served Defendant with the moving papers and Defendant has failed to respond to the Demand to Produce Documents. However, the Court notes that although the follow-up letter and the moving papers were served by mail, the Demand to Produce Documents was improperly served on the self-represented Defendant by electronic mail. (MTC DPD p. 15.) Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 authorizes service of documents by electronic service (service by e-mail) in certain enumerated circumstances. Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides, “[f]or cases filed on or after January 1, 2019, if a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is authorized” only: (1) “if a party . . . has expressly consented to receive electronic service in that specific action”, (2) “if . . . the court has ordered electronic service on a represented party or other represented person under subdivision (c) or (d)”, or (3) “if . . . the document is served electronically pursuant to the procedures specified in subdivision (e)”, that is, electronic service is made upon a party who is represented by counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), (c), (d), (e).)

For this reason, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the Demand to Produce Documents on Defendant.

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 sanctions in the amount of $760.00 for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $280.00 per hour for 1.5 hours of preparing the Motion, 1 hour to appear at the hearing, and $60 in filing fees. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $280.00 for the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents (Set One) as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $280.00 per hour for 1 hour of preparing the Motion and $60 in filing fees. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 7.)

Given that the Court continues the hearing on the Motions, the Court will determine whether sanctions are appropriate at the next scheduled hearing.

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is CONTINUED to FEBRUARY 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the Special Interrogatories on Defendant and report to the Court whether Defendant has responded to the discovery requests within the statutorily required period. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand to Produce Documents is CONTINUED to FEBRUARY 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve the Demand to Produce Documents on Defendant and report to the Court whether Defendant has responded to the discovery requests within the statutorily required period. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

[1] The heading of the Motion incorrectly states that Plaintiff seeks responses to Form Interrogatories, while the rest of the Motion addresses Special Interrogatories.