Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC02449, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02449    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         April 29, 2024 

Case Name:                             Patty Smith vs. Terry Bowen, et al.

Case No.:                                22STLC02449

Motion:                                   (1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

                                                (2) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Set 1, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party:                         Defendant Terry Bowen

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Patty Smith

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative  Ruling:                   MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TERRY BOWEN’S FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ARE GRANTED.

Responses to both discovery Motions are due 20 days from the date of this order

Defendant Terry Bowen’s Request for Monetary Sanctions are also granted.  Sanctions are awarded to Defendant Bowen against Plaintiff in the amount of $825.00.  Said monetary sanctions must be paid 30 days from the date of this order.          

BACKGROUND

            On April 11, 2022, Patty Smith (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Terry Bowen (Bowen) and Cassandra Davis (Davis) for one count of motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that took place on June 19, 2021. The motions now before the Court are: (1) Defendant Bowen’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1 (“MTC Form ROGs”), and Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,235.00; and (2) Defendant Bowen’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Set 1 (“MTC RFP”), and Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,000.00 (the Motions). Plaintiff opposes both Motions, no reply was filed.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard for a Motion to Compel Responses to 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).)

Legal Standard for a Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production

            “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.)

Analysis

            For both Motions, Bowen provides the Declaration of Robert J. Gardner (Gardner Decl.), which states that Bowen served both Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and Request for Production (Set 1) on Plaintiff’s counsel on December 18, 2023. (Gardner Decl., ¶ 3.) The deadline to respond was January 22, 2024, however, no responses were received. (Id.) After Defense counsel followed up with Plaintiff’s counsel on March 6, 2024, no response was received. (Gardner Decl., ¶ 4.) Defense counsel attempted to confer again with Plaintiff’s counsel on March 15, 2024, however, Plaintiff did not respond. In their opposition papers, Plaintiff’s counsel simply states that their client is not cooperating with discovery, however, no reasoning is given for the refusal to respond to Defense counsel’s meet and confer efforts. Therefore, the Motions are granted.

            Sanctions

            Defense counsel provides the following calculations:

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $235 per hour

·         Counsel spent 2 hours preparing the MTC Form ROGS and 1 hour preparing the MTC RFP

·         Counsel anticipated 2 hours preparing a reply for each Motion

·         Counsel anticipates preparing for and attending the hearing will take 1 hour for each Motion

·         Counsel incurred a $60.00 filing fee for each Motion

Considering that no reply was filed for either Motion, the simplicity of the Motions, and the Motions will be heard together, along with Plaintiff’s counsel’s stating that his client is uncooperative, sanctions will be imposed against Plaintiff only and awarded to Defendant Bowen in the amount of $825.00, representing an hour for each Motion, an hour for the hearing and $120 in filing fees.

CONCLUSION

            Accordingly, both (1) Defendant Bowen’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1; and (2) Defendant Bowen’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Set 1, and Request for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Responses to both discovery Motions are due 20 days from the date of this order

Monetary Sanctions are awarded to Defendant Bowen against Plaintiff in the amount of $825.00.  Said monetary sanctions must be paid 30 days from the date of this order.         

Moving party is ordered to give notice.