Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC00299, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC00299 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: 25
Hearing Date:
Thursday, November 16, 2023
Case Name: Juan Espejo v. Lifeng Li, et al.
Case No.: 23STLC00299
Motion: 1. Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories
2.
Motion to Compel Responses to Request
for Production of Documents
Moving Party: Defendant Lifeng Li
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Defendant Lifeng Li’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Juan Espejo’s Responses to its Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide code-compliant and objection-free responses within 20 days from notice of ruling. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally are ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $310 within 30 days from notice of ruling.
Defendant Lifeng Li’s Motion to
Compel Plaintiff Juan Espejo’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents
is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to
provide code-compliant and objection-free responses and requested documents
within 20 days from notice of ruling. Defendant’s
request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff
and Plaintiff’s counsel of record jointly and severally are ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of
$310 within 30 days from notice of ruling.
BACKGROUND
On January
17, 2023, Plaintiff Juan Espejo filed a complaint against Defendants Lifeng Li,
Shun Po Ku, and Does 1 to 20 for a single cause of action of motor vehicle
negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 5,
2021.
On October
13, 2023, Defendant Lifeng Li filed the following two instant motions: (1)
Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories; and (2) Motion
to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents. In
connection with each motion, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff
and Plaintiff’s counsel of record.
On November 13, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of
non-opposition. No opposition has been filed.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Defendant propounded the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff
on July 27, 2023. Plaintiff did not
timely respond to the requests. Subsequently,
Defendant sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter dated
September 13, 2023. Plaintiff did not
respond. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery.
OPPOSITION
None.
REPLY
None.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard
Compel Responses to
Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents
Within 30 days after service of interrogatories or request
for production of documents, the party to whom the discovery requests are
propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding
party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the
time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has
extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260, subd. (a);
2031.260, subd. (a).)¿
If a party to whom interrogatories or request for
production of documents 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,
subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b).)
A party waives its objections, including one based on
privilege or work-product protection, to a discovery request when it does not
serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd.
(a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)
A motion to
compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and
conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate
statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390,
404.)
Sanctions
Under Code of Civil
Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he 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. . .
. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the
court shall impose that sanction 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.”¿ Failing to respond or to submit to an
authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿
Sanctions are mandatory
in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and request
for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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); 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision
(a), “[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.”
II. Discussion
Here, the first set of form interrogatories
and first set of request for production of documents were propounded on July 27,
2023, and no responses have been received to either to date. (Declarations of Jonathan S. Weilbacher ISO FROGs
& RPDs, ¶¶ 2-3; Ex. “A.”) A
party waives its objections, including one based on privilege or work-product
protection, to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to
the request. (Code Civ. Proc. §§
2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED.
In connection with each motion, Defendant requests monetary
sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record. Defendant requests monetary sanctions of $560
(2 hours incurred at hourly rate of $250, plus filing fee of $60) for each
motion. (Weilbacher Decls. ¶ 5.) Considering that Defendant’s
unopposed motions are brief, substantively similar, and will be heard at a
single hearing, the Court reduces the total number of hours requested for each
motion to 1 hour. Accordingly, the
request for sanctions is GRANTED for each motion in the reduced amount of $310
(1 hour incurred at hourly rate of $250, plus filing fee of $60).
III. Conclusion
Defendant Lifeng Li’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Juan Espejo’s Responses to Form Interrogatories is
GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide
code-compliant and objection-free responses within 20 days from notice of
ruling. Defendant’s request for
sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ORDERED to pay sanctions in the reduced amount
of $310 within 30 days from notice of ruling.
Defendant Lifeng Li’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Juan Espejo’s Responses to Request for Production of
Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
ORDERED to provide code-compliant and objection-free responses and requested
documents within 20 days from notice of ruling.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, are
ORDERED to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $310 within 30 days from
notice of ruling.