Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC06781, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC06781    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES – SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED to MAY 15, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED to May 15, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

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

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 UNCLEAR

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of April 9, 2023.              [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 9, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Buildsmart Construction, Inc. (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, open book account, account stated, and reasonable value.

On January 26, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions:

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 (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“MTC: DFP”).

No opposition has been filed to either Motion.

            On March 20, 2023, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney indicating that it is now representing itself.  The Court notes that an entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in litigation, as such an act would be the unauthorized practice of law.  (See e.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101) (corporation); Albion River Watershed Protection Ass’n v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 34, 37 (unincorporated association); Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230¿Cal.¿App.¿4th 1518, 1519-20 (trustee for trust).)

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 30, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories (Set One).  (MTC: Special – Freed Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension to respond by February 17, 2023.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 2.)  Defendant has not provided any discovery responses and has not responded to any communications regarding the discovery request.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded special interrogatories on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses.

However, the Court notes that the physical and email addresses listed for Defendant’s former counsel on the Proof of Service of moving papers is not consistent with the contact information listed on previous filings by Defendant.  (MTC: Special, p. 25.)  Moreover, Counsel Sohaila Saghed, Esq. is no longer representing Defendant.  (3-20-23 Substitution of Attorney.)  The Court orders Plaintiff to file proof that Defendant has been properly served with the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories.

B.    Demand 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 30, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Demand for Production (Set One).  (MTC: DFP – Freed Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension to respond by February 17, 2023.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 2.)  Defendant has not provided any discovery responses and has not responded to any communications regarding the discovery request.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded a demand for production on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses.

However, the Court notes that the physical and email addresses listed for Defendant’s former counsel on the Proof of Service of moving papers is not consistent with the contact information listed on previous filings by Defendant.  (MTC: DFP p. 23.)  Moreover, Counsel Sohaila Saghed, Esq. is no longer representing Defendant.  (3-20-23 Substitution of Attorney.)  The Court orders Plaintiff to file proof that Defendant has been properly served with the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories.

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)).

Furthermore, §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300 authorize the Court to impose monetary sanctions if a party fails to respond to interrogatories and requests for production.  Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

Plaintiff requests $1,860.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and one (1) hour to appear at the hearing, at a billing rate of $600.00, and filing fee of $60.00.  (MTC: Special – Freed Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.)  Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he has over 35 years of experience and $600 is a reasonable rate for “senior litigants with over 20 years of litigation experience.”  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. 3.)

Plaintiff requests $1,860.00 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production (Set One) as follows: two (2) hours to prepare the Motion and one (1) hour to appear at the hearing, at a billing rate of $600.00, and filing fee of $60.00.  (MTC: DFP – Freed Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.)  Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he has over 35 years of experience and $600 is a reasonable rate for “senior litigants with over 20 years of litigation experience.”  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. 3.)

Given that the Court continues the hearing on the Motions to Compel, the Court will determine the issue of monetary sanctions at the next scheduled hearing.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED to MAY 15, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED to MAY 15, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.