Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC08395, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC08395    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Case Name:                             ANASTACIO TO VASQUEZ, an individual v. ZHANARBEK SAPAKOV, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive

Case No.:                                22STLC08395

Motion:                                   Motion to: Compel Plaintiff Anastacio to Vasquez’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One; Compel Plaintiff Anastacio to Vasquez’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff in the Amount of $661.65

Moving Party:                         Defendant Zhanarbek Sapakov

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant’s Motion to: Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Anastacio To Vasquez is ordered to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories with Code compliant, objection-free verified responses within twenty (20) days from notice of this Court’s Order.

Defendant’s Motion to Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Anastacio To Vasquez is ordered to respond to Defendant’s Request For Production with Code compliant, objection-free verified responses within twenty (20) days from notice of this Court’s order.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in part in the amount of $523.30 against Plaintiff.  

Plaintiff Anastacio To Vasquez is ordered to pay Defendant’s Counsel monetary sanctions in the amount of $523.30, payable within thirty (30) days of service of this Court’s Order.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 27, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 03, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2022, Anastacio To Vasquez (“Plaintiff”), filed two causes of action for negligence and negligence per se against Defendant Zhanarbek Sapakov (“Defendant”).

Defendant filed his answer to the Complaint on June 02, 2023.

On January 31, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to: Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One; Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; and Requests for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff in the Amount of $661.65 for each motion.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant prays for an order from the Court compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objection, to Defendant’s Request for Production (“RFPs”) and Form Interrogatories which was served on Plaintiff on September 05, 2023. Defendant makes this motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the above-described request for production of documents and form interrogatories. Defendant additionally prays for $661.65 in monetary sanctions to be issued against Plaintiff for each motion based on 3 hours of attorney time spent at a rate of $200.00 per hour plus $61.65 in filing fees.

OPPOSITION

             No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

             No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard  

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

II.        Discussion

A. Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and RFPs

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant files two motions seeking to compel responses to his RFPs and Form Interrogatories from the Plaintiff. Since Defendant has paid the filing fees for both motions, argues the same facts, and has provided Plaintiff with proper notice, the Court’s order will address the merits of both motions below.

Defendant provides the declaration of his counsel who stated that on June 02, 2023, Defendant served both his Form Interrogatories and RFPs on Plaintiff’s counsel. (Arnold J. Alban Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Responses to Defendant’s discovery request were due by July 05, 2023. Counsel declares that on June 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed him to inform counsel that their office no longer represented Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff became self-represented on April 14, 2023. (Id.) On September 05, 2023, Defendant served both his Form Interrogatories and RFPs on Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 3; Exh. B.) Responses were due on October 09, 2023. (Id.) Counsel avers that Plaintiff’s responses have not been forthcoming despite counsel’s inquiry on the status of the discovery responses on November 16, 2023. (Id.) Counsel avers that no responses to Defendant’s discovery request have been received nor has an extension been requested. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that more than 30 days have lapsed since Defendant served his discovery requests on Plaintiff. Defendant has provided evidence indicating that Plaintiff has not provided responses to both of Defendant’s discovery requests and that no extension has either been sought or given. Thus, since more than thirty (30) days have lapsed since Defendant served both his RFPs and Form Interrogatories, and no responses have been received, Defendant is therefore entitled to pursue the instant motion. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to: Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Set One and Compel Plaintiff’s Verified Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2023.010(d)). 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, a misuse of the discovery process. Defendant has successfully argued the motion and without evidence to the contrary, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in failing to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Thus, the Court must impose monetary sanctions on Plaintiff for his failure to respond to the discovery requests that necessitated the instant motions. 

Plaintiff seeks $661.65 in monetary sanctions to be issued against the Plaintiff, for each motion, for the sum of $61.65 in court costs, one (1) hour in time spent drafting the motion at a rate of $200.00 per hour, plus two (2) hours in reviewing opposition papers, preparing a reply, and appearance fees. (Alban Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court does not find the amount to be reasonable given the simplicity and similarities of the Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, the Court grants sanctions in the amount $523.30 total for both motions for: two (2) hours combined for time spent drafting the motion and for the appearance at a rate of $200.00 per hour, plus $123.30 in court fees.  

III.       CONCLUSION

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO: COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF ANASTACIO TO VASQUEZ IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES WITH CODE COMPLIANT,

BJECTION-FREE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM

NOTICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE ARE

GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF ANASTACIO TO VASQUEZ IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION WITH CODE COMPLIANT,

OBJECTION-FREE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM

NOTICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN PART IN THE

AMOUNT OF $523.30 AGAINST PLAINTIFF.

PLAINTIFF ANASTACIO TO VASQUEZ IS ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT’S

COUNSEL MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $523.30, PAYABLE

 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.