Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22PSCV00588 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22PSCV00588, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00588 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant West Covina Care, Inc. d/b/a Beacon Healthcare Center

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff To Provide Responses to Interrogatories is CONTINUED TO JUNE 5, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25. Defendant is ordered to pay an additional motion fee prior to that date.

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 May 2, 2023 [ ] Late [ X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 2, 2023 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff Charles Yang (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a complaint against Defendant Trevor Lords (“Lords”). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint naming Lords and Beacon Healthcare Center (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleged negligence, destruction of personal property, intentional infliction of emotional distress and medical malpractice. Defendants filed an answer on November 23, 2022, correcting the name of defendant Beacon Healthcare Center to West Covina Care, Inc. dba Beacon Healthcare Center (“Beacon”).

On April 3, 2023, Defendant Beacon filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Responses to Interrogatories, and for monetary sanctions.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) A motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.”¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿ Also, “[a] separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)

Here, Defendant Beacon served Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff on January 20, 2023. (Harrison Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A). Defendant’s counsel twice reached out to Plaintiff about the overdue responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5). Nonetheless, to date, Defendant Beacon has not received any responses. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

The Court, however, cannot grant the Motion because it is actually two motions – one to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and one to compel responses to Special Interrogatories. Defendant Beacon has only paid one motion fee for two motions. The Court Reservation System requires a separate hearing date reservation and filing fees for each motion. Filing two motions but paying only one motion filing fee circumvents the Court’s requirements. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4^th 457, 460; Govt Code Sec. 70617(a)(f)). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion(s) are CONTINUED TO JUNE 5, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25. Defendant Beacon is ordered to pay the additional motion fee prior to that date.

B. Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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 to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Because Defendant’s Motion(s) are continued, Defendant’s request for sanctions is continued to June 5, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. as well.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff To Provide Responses to Interrogatories is CONTINUED TO JUNE 5, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25. Defendant is ordered to pay an additional motion fee prior to that date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant West Covina Care, Inc. d/b/a Beacon Healthcare Center

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff To Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is granted. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $435.00 to be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

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 May 2, 2023 [ ] Late [ X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 2, 2023 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On April 3, 2023, Defendant Beacon filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, and for monetary sanctions.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production

A party must respond to a request for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (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 responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) A motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.”¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿ Also, “[a] separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).)

Here, Defendant Beacon served Requests for Production on Plaintiff on January 20, 2023 by U.S. Mail and Email. (Harrison Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due on or about February 24, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 3). Defendant sent correspondence to Plaintiff on March 20, 2023, advising that responses were overdue. (Id. at ¶ 4). Defendant further spoke to Plaintiff about the overdue responses. (Id. at ¶ 5) To date, Defendant has not received any responses. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, the Motion is granted.

B. Request for Sanctions

Here, Defendant’s attorney seeks $1,060.00 in monetary sanctions for preparing this motion, billed at $250.00 per hour. (Harrison Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s nonresponse a misuse of the discovery process. However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $375.00, based on one and a half hours of attorney time, to be reasonable, plus the $60.00 filing fee, for a total of $435.00

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents is granted. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $435.00 to be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.