Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV31937, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ramglass Enterprises, Inc. dba J&J Roofing (“Defendant”)

This action arises from a negligently installed roof which caught fire. Plaintiff Ronald Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Ramglass Enterprises, Inc. dba J&J Roofing (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for negligence and professional negligence.

On October 13, 2023, Defendant filed and served an unopposed motion (the “Motion”) for an order to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within seven days of the Court’s order. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel, The Barnes Firm, in the amount of $3,015.00 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel, Alan J. Carnegie of Law Offices of Alan J. Carnegie.[1]

The Motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b).

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010(a).) Where a party fails to timely respond to demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling “[t]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b) provides that “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.” A court has discretion to “impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Defendant’s counsel, Alan Carnegie (“Carnegie”), served Plaintiff’s counsel with Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One on May 22, 2023. (Carnegie Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 1.) There has been no response from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Counsel declares that his hourly rate is $450.00 per hour. (Id., ¶ 9.) Counsel declares that he spent 1 hour attempting to contact Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire after the missing production, 3 hours researching and drafting the Notice of Motion and Points and Authorities, 0.9 hours drafting his declaration, and 0.3 hours preparing the proposed order as to the Motion. (Id.) 1.5 hours of time is anticipated reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and drafting a reply brief. (Id.) Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $3,015.00, which represents 6.7 hours of work at an hourly rate of $450.00 per hour. (Id.)

Based on the declaration of counsel, Plaintiff has failed to provide discovery responses. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and the Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, complete, and code-complaint responses, without objections, to such discovery within 30 days of notice of this order.

As to monetary sanctions, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, The Barnes Firm, in the reasonable amount of $1350.00. Such amount represents three hours of total work on the Motion at the rate of $450.00 per hour. The Court reduces the hours given the simplicity of the Motion and the fact that the Motion is unopposed. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, The Barnes Firm, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1350.00, jointly and severally, to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Motion is GRANTED as it is unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiff is ordered to serve complete, verified, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, The Barnes Firm, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel, Alan J. Carnegie of Law Offices of Alan J. Carnegie, in the total amount of $1350.00, jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Notice of Motion contains a typographical error because it requests sanctions be paid to “Plaintiff’s counsel, Alan J. Carnegie of Law Offices of Alan J. Carnegie.” (Motion at 2:12.)