Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV30275, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30275    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On August 16, 2021, plaintiff Fabienne Sanegor (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”) and UKAP Trading LLLC for product liability arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase and installation of a road bike pedal that snapped off during use and gouged Plaintiff’s ankle on March 17, 2021.

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions (1) to compel Walmart’s verified responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One, and (2) to compel Walmart’s verified answers to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  No oppositions have been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

The 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)  Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, plaintiff’s counsel served the discovery requests on Walmart on May 20, 2022.  (Meenan Decl.-Demand for Inspection (“RFP”), ¶ 13, Ex. 1; Meenan Decl.-Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), ¶ 13, Ex. 1.)  Responses were due by June 21, 2022, but Walmart failed to timely respond.  (Meenan Decl.-RFP, ¶¶ 15, 16; Meenan Decl.-FROGs, ¶¶ 15, 16.)  Thereafter, Walmart requested, and Plaintiff granted, two extensions to respond to the discovery requests by August 8, 2022.  (Meenan Decl.-RFP, ¶ 17, Ex. 2; Meenan Decl.-FROGs, ¶ 17, Ex. 2.)  However, Walmart still failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  (Meenan Decl.-RFP, ¶ 17; Meenan Decl.-FROGs, ¶ 17.)  Therefore, all objections to the demand for inspection and interrogatories are waived. 

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests and Walmart failed to serve responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Walmart to provide responses to the at-issue Demand for Inspection and Form Interrogatories.  

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests the imposition of monetary sanctions against Walmart in the amount of $2,000 for each motion filed for the total sum of $4,000.00.  The Court finds that imposition of monetary sanctions against Walmart is warranted.  Walmart failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests despite Plaintiff having twice granted extensions.  Such a failure to respond to discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Walmart in a total reduced amount of $1,120.00 for 2 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $500.00 and $120.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 20 days of service of this order.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are granted. 

Defendant Walmart, Inc. is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of the date of notice of this order.

The Court orders Defendant Walmart, Inc. to pay $1,120.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of notice 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 17th day of February 2023