Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV26889, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26889    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Emani Hunter (“Hunter”), Bijan Noble (“Noble”), Arte Shelton, and Ronnie Randall brought this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Armando Castillo Miranda (“Defendant”).  Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s negligence caused on automobile accident on the Pacific Coast Highway on July 21, 2018.

On January 13, 2022, Defendant served Hunter and Noble with Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”), Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”), and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs”).  Having received no responses, Defendant proceeded to file four motions: (1) to compel Hunter to provide responses to FROGs and SROGs; (2) to compel Hunter to provide responses to RPDs; (3) to compel Noble to provide responses to FROGs and SROGs; and (4) to compel Noble to provide responses to RPDs.  Defendant also makes two requests for $486.30 in sanctions and two requests for $585.00 in sanctions.  The motions are unopposed.

Compel Responses to Interrogatories from Hunter

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve timely responses, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the interrogatories, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

On January 13, 2022, Defendant served FROGs and SROGs, on Hunter via electronic mail. (Opfell Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A, B.)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.260, subdivision (a), the deadline for Hunter to serve responses was February 13, 2022.  On April 11, 2022, Counsel for Defendant sent a letter to counsel for Hunter requesting that verified answers to discovery be provided.  (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. C.)  According to counsel, Hunter has failed to serve verified answers. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order compelling Hunter to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Hunter is ordered to provide verified answers, without objection within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents from Hunter

If a party to whom a demand for the production of documents is directed fails to serve a timely response, the court may make an order a compelling response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300. subd (b).)   A party that fails to serve a timely response waives any objections to the interrogatories, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

On January 13, 2022, Defendant served RPDs, on Hunter via electronic mail. (Opfell Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.260, subdivision (a), the deadline for Hunter to serve responses was February 13, 2022. On April 11, 2022, Counsel for Defendant sent a letter to counsel for Hunter requesting that verified answers to discovery be provided.  (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.)  According to counsel, Hunter has failed to serve verified answers. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order compelling Hunter to respond to Defendant’s Demand for the Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.  Hunter is ordered to provide verified answers, without objection within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Compel Responses to Interrogatories from Noble

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve timely responses, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the interrogatories, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

On January 13, 2022, Defendant served FROGs and SROGs, on Noble via electronic mail. (Opfell Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A, B.)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.260, subdivision (a), the deadline for Noble to serve responses was February 13, 2022.  On April 11, 2022, Counsel for Defendant sent a letter to counsel for Noble requesting that verified answers to discovery be provided.  (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. C.)  According to counsel, Noble has failed to serve verified answers. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order compelling Noble to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Noble is ordered to provide verified answers, without objection within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents from Noble

If a party to whom a demand for the production of documents is directed fails to serve a timely response, the court may make an order a compelling response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300. subd (b).)   A party that fails to serve a timely response waives any objections to the interrogatories, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

On January 13, 2022, Defendant served RPDs, on Noble via electronic mail. (Opfell Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.260, subdivision (a), the deadline for Noble to serve responses was February 13, 2022. On April 11, 2022, Counsel for Defendant sent a letter to counsel for Noble requesting that verified answers to discovery be provided.  (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.)  According to counsel, Noble has failed to serve verified answers. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order compelling Noble to respond to Defendant’s Demand for the Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.  Noble is ordered to provide verified answers, without objection within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Monetary Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Likewise, sanctions are mandatory against any party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to demands for production of documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)   “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed…”  (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s four motions are accompanied by two requests for $486.30 in sanctions and two requests for $585.00 in sanctions.  However, Defendant’s requests do not match his counsel’s billing statements.  Counsel for Defendant states his hourly rate is $120.00.  (Opfell Decl., ¶ 8.)  Counsel for Defendant further states he spent one hour preparing each motion and anticipates spending two hours attending the hearing for each motion.  After accounting for the $60.00 filing fee, for each motion counsel for Defendant only provides justification for $420.00 in sanctions.  (Ibid.) 

“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  “The amount to be awarded in attorney's fees is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”  (Ibid.)

The Court finds counsel’s hourly rate to be reasonable.  However, the instant motions are unopposed and scheduled to be heard at the same time.  Billing three hours for each motion is redundant—one hour for each motion is sufficient.  Accordingly, for each motion the Court will award $120.00 in attorney fees plus the $60 filing fee.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Emani Hunter and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $360.00, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.  Sanctions are also imposed against Bijan Noble and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $360.00, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

      Dated this 18th day of January 2023