Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC00840, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00840    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Case Name:                             Nelson Alfredo Bonilla Montano v. Jose Ramon Cervantes, et al.

Case No.:                                22STLC00840

Motion:                                   (1) Jose Cervantes’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,061.65

And

(2) Jose Cervantes’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Inspection Demands Request (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,061.65.

Moving Party:                         Defendant Jose Cervantes

Responding Party:                   N/A – Unopposed

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative  Ruling:                  

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Inspection Demands Request (Set 1) are GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is also GRANTED.

The Court awards sanctions to Defendant and imposes them on Plaintiff in the total amount of $873.30, inclusive of both Motions, payable within 30-days of notice of this Court’s Ruling.

BACKGROUND

            This case stems from an automobile collision in which Nelson Alfredo Bonilla Montano (Plaintiff) alleges that Jose Ramon Cervantes (Defendant) negligently operated his vehicle causing the collision. (Complaint, ¶ MV-1.) Plaintiff filed their Complaint on February 8, 2022. The motions before the Court are: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,061.65 and (2) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Inspection Demands Request (Set 1) and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,061.65 (collectively, the Motions). Both Motions are unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard for Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

            If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

            If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) Further, “[t]he 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, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Legal Standard for Motion to Responses to Demand for Inspection of Documents

            “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4…(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (CCP § 2031.300)

            “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.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010)

Analysis

            Defendant submits the Declaration of Alexandra Barreno (Barreno Decl.) for both Motions, which states that on July 31, 2023, Defendant served both Form Interrogatories and Inspection Demands on Plaintiff. (Barreno Decl., ¶ 2.) The deadline to serve responses was August 31, 2023, however, no responses were received. (Id.) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on October 4, 2023 via email. On October 26, 2023, Defense counsel was informed that the handling attorney had passed away, and that the associate working with that attorney had left the firm. (Barreno Decl., ¶ 3-4.) After granting Plaintiff’s counsel a 30-day extension to November 28, 2023, responses were never received. (Barreno Decl. ¶ 4-5.) As responses were never served, the Motions are granted, and sanctions warranted.    

Sanctions

            Defense counsel provides the calculations below:

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $250.00

·         Counsel spent 1 hour preparing each Motion

·         Counsel anticipated spending 3 hours reviewing opposition papers and attending the hearing related to these Motions

·         Counsel incurred a filing fee of 61.65

·         Counsel is requesting a total of $1,061.65 per Motion

            Considering no opposition papers were filed and considering the similarities between the Motions, the Court will award sanctions to Defendant, and impose them on Plaintiff in the total amount of $873.30, inclusive of both Motions.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Inspection Demands Request (Set 1) are GRANTED.

The request for monetary sanctions is also GRANTED.

The Court awards sanctions to Defendant and imposes them on Plaintiff in the total amount of $873.30, inclusive of both Motions, payable within 30-days from notice of this Court’s Ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.