Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23NWLC06802, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

Case Number: 23NWLC06802    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Case Name:                             CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU,  INC v. DANIEL H LUEL

Case No.:                                23NWLC06802

Motion:                                   Motions to Compel Requests for Productions and Special Interrogatories

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff’s Two Motions to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories are GRANTED.

 Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED, in the reduced total amount of $620.00.

BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Daniel H Lubel aka Dan H Lubel aka Daniel Lubel aka Daniel Lpbel aka Dan Lubel dba D L Builders (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; (3) account stated; and (4) reasonable value. 

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Production of Documents, Set One, each with sanctions.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff alleges it served Defendant with its first set of Special Interrogatories and first set of Production of Documents on May 26, 2023.  To date, Defendant has not responded.  Plaintiff requests for sanctions in the total amount of $3,145.50. 

OPPOSITION

            None filed.

REPLY

            None filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

A.                Request for Production & Interrogatories and Sanctions

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.)   

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against an unsuccessful moving or opposing party unless they acted with substantial justification or imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).)

II.        Discussion

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that, even though two separate motions were filed, they are all identical in so far as they rely on the same legal arguments and exhibits. Thus, for citing purposes, the Court shall reference just one motion.  

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant by mail with Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.  Plaintiff has not received any responses.  There is no indication before the Court that Defendant complied with Plaintiff’s discovery requests.  The Court notes that Plaintiff did not submit a proof of service indicating the proposed order was served on Defendant, as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.510(a).

As Defendant failed to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery demands, the Court awards sanctions to Plaintiff in the reduced total amount of $620.00 (1 hour in preparing the motions at $500 an hour; $60 filing fees for each motion) due to the simplicity of the motion and non-opposition. 

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to (1) First Set of Special Interrogatories and (2) First Set of Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide compliant responses and requested documents without objection within twenty (20) days of the Court’s order.  The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in the amount of $620.00 against Defendant, to be paid within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order.