Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21TCV07722, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TCV07722    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff Natasha Vea filed this action against defendants Mike Brown Grandstands, Inc. and Jaime Davalos (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from an March 14, 2019 motor vehicle accident.         

On March 15, 2023, Defendants filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set Two.  In the notices of motion, Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff.

The motions are unopposed.

II.                LEGAL STANDARDS

A.    Initial Discovery Responses

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).)  Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

B.     Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿¿  

III.             DISCUSSION

A.    Defendants’ Discovery Requests

Defendants served the supplemental discovery requests on Plaintiff, June 10, 2022, and Set Two of Special Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, July 7, 2022.  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated on several occasions that verified responses were forthcoming.  However, to date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ discovery requests.  (See Mackie Decls.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and demand for production are waived. 

As Defendants properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the at-issue discovery. 

B.     Monetary Sanctions 

Defendants request imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $2,340 ($585 for each motion filed).  Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the total reduced amount of $940, consisting of 4 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $175 and $240 in filing fees.  

IV.             CONCLUSION

The motions are granted.   

Plaintiff Natasha Vea is ordered to provide verified responses to Set One of Defendants’ Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents; Set Two of Defendants’ Special Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents; and to produce all documents in her possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Supplemental Demand and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents.

The Court orders Plaintiff Natasha Vea to pay monetary sanctions of $940 to Defendants, by and through their counsel.

Verified responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days 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 1st day of May 2023