Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC03224, Date: 2022-11-14 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: 22STLC03224     Hearing Date: November 14, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Raymond McPheters

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff Raymond McPheters’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant Sully II AVH, LLC is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days 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 November 8, 2022.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of November 8, 2022.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Raymond McPheters filed an action against Defendants Michael Sullivan aka Michael D. Sullivan aka Michael Dennis Sullivan (“Sullivan”) and Sully III AVH, LLC (“Sully III”), (collectively “Defendants”), for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51.  The action arose when Defendants allegedly refused to install hand controls in a motor vehicle at its facility that would allow Plaintiff to test drive one of the vehicles.  (Compl. ¶¶ 3-6.)

On June 27, 2022, Defendants jointly filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Sully III AVH, LLC’s Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“Motion”).  No opposition has been filed.

On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Sully III AVH, LLC’s Answers to Special Interrogatories and a Motion to Compel Defendant Sully III AVH, LLC’s Answers to Inspection Demands, set for hearing on November 28, 2022, and December 1, 2022, respectively.

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 July 6, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of Form Interrogatories, on Defendant Sully III.  (Mehrban Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Plaintiff has not received verified answers to the interrogatories.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)  On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel asking for responses by September 8, 2022, in order to avoid having to file a motion to compel responses.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Ex. B.)  As of the date of the instant Motion, no verified responses have been provided to Plaintiff.  (Mot. p. 3.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded form interrogatories on Defendant Sully III and Defendant has not provided any responses.  Although Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer with Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to reach an informal resolution by sending an email to defense counsel regarding the discovery request.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Sully III’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

B.    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 $500 in sanctions for Defendant Sully III’s failure to respond to the instant discovery request.  (Mehrban Decl. ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that his hourly rate is $500.00 per hour, and he has “spent and will spend a cumulative total of no less than one hour in communicating with defense counsel regarding this motion, preparing the motion, reviewing Defendant’s opposition to the motion, and appearing at the hearing on the motion.”  (Ibid.)  Although no opposition has been filed, the Court finds an hour of time expended at a billing rate of $500 per hour to prepare the Motion and appear at the hearing reasonable.

            The Court grants the Motion to Compel and accordingly, grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

            Plaintiff Raymond McPheters’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Defendant Sully II AVH, LLC is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.