Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV19361, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19361    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: 27

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

FIONA BILLINGS,

                   Plaintiff,

          vs.

 

CHRISTINA MACEDO,

 

                   Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 22STCV19361

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:  MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 1, 2023

 

          On June 14, 2022 Plaintiff Fiona Billings (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Christina Macedo (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. On July 20, 2022, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff.  Having received no responses, Defendant proceeded to file the motions compelling Plaintiff to provide responses.   Defendant also requests monetary sanctions.

          Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; 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 request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, 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.)

Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition and failed to inform the Court whether responses were provided or were forthcoming.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED.   

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $750.00 for 3 hours at Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate of $230.00 and $60.00 in filing fees, 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 1st day of February 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court