Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV40842, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT CALCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT CALCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff, Isabel Arteaga, filed these motions to compel Defendant, Calcrete Construction, Inc., to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant.

On May 17, 2024, Defense Counsel filed untimely declarations opposing the request for sanctions. Defense Counsel explains that verified, objection-free responses were served along with responsive documents on April 30, 2024. Plaintiff does not dispute service of the discovery responses.

Based on the foregoing, the motions are moot. The only remaining issue is whether the court should impose sanctions.

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Defense Counsel requests that the court exercise its discretion not to impose sanctions. He explains the delay in obtaining and providing substantive responses was attributable to Counsel’s illness and frequent medical leaves during the pertinent time. Further, the client does not speak English fluently, which delayed obtaining discovery responses.

Plaintiff argues, in part, that Defense Counsel’s timeline of events he was in the office yet still did not prepare discovery responses until the eve of the hearing for this motion. Plaintiff points out that she met and conferred multiple times, allowed additional time, filed an ex parte application and motions to compel, attended multiple status conferences regarding the status of Defendant’s discovery responses, and prepared multiple declarations regarding the same.

Given the foregoing, the court will impose reduced sanctions in consideration of Defense Counsel’s illness and Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain discovery responses. The court imposes sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $1,120 consisting of two hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $120 in filing fees.

The request for sanctions is Granted. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,120.00 to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court