Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC05155, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05155     Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY:    Defendant, California Food Management, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff, Ulysses Barragan Lopez

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

(CCP §§ 2023.030, 2030.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant California Food Management, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff Ulysses Barragan Lopez is to serve responses, without objection, to the interrogatories within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order.

Plaintiff Lopez and his counsel are to pay $675.00 to Defendant California Food Management, LLC within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK/NOT OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK/NOT OK]

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

OPPOSITION:          None                                       [  ] Late                       [ X] None

REPLY:                     None                                       [  ] Late                       [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

Plaintiff Ulysses Barragan Lopez filed a complaint on August 4, 2022, against Defendant California Food Management, LLC (“Defendant”), asserting a cause of action for negligence arising out of an alleged slip and fall accident that occurred on August 6, 2020.

Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff on October 12, 2022. According to the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff failed to serve responses.

On February 10, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (“Motion”) and for $2,520.00 in sanctions.

II.              Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 

III.            Discussion

Here, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses, without objection, to his Form Interrogatories, Set One. The set of interrogatories was properly propounded on Plaintiff on October 12, 2022 (Declaration of Nicholas Burke in Support of Motion [Decl. Burke], ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Responses were due on November 14, 2022. Plaintiff failed to provide any response, whether timely or not. (Decl. Burke, ¶¶ 3-6).  Defendant’s counsel followed up several times but still received no responses to the form interrogatories. (Id.)

No opposition has been filed.  Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a response.

Sanctions

As noted above, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 (a) allows the Court to impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.  A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.  (Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d)). 

The Court finds Plaintiff Lopez’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant seeks sanctions of $2,520.00 based on 12 hours of attorney time billed at $205.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00.  (Burke Decl. ¶ 7).  The Court finds the amount requested to be excessive given the simplicity of the Motion and the lack of an opposition or reply.  The Court finds $675.00, based on 3.0 hours of attorney time and $60.00 in filing fees, to be reasonable. 

IV.           Conclusion & Order

Defendant California Food Management, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff Ulysses Barragan Lopez is to serve responses, without objection, to the interrogatories within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order.

Plaintiff Lopez and his counsel are to pay $675.00 to Defendant California Food Management, LLC within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.