Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV42632, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV42632, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42632 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: 4/2/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name.: 20STCV42632 JERMAINE ALVEREZ MARTIN vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Motion Name: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SROGs, SET ONE, RFP, SET ONE, FROGs, SET ONE, AND SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

¿¿¿

Ruling: MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SROGs, SET ONE, RFPs, SET ONE, FROGs, SET ONE, AND SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED.

Background

On November 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed the current auto accident case against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. On January 5, 2023, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”), Request for Production, Set One (“RFPs”), and Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROGs”) on Plaintiff. Defendant gave Plaintiff several extensions to provide the discovery responses, with April 3, 2023, as the final deadline. As of May 16, 2023, Plaintiff had failed to provide the requested discovery responses, leading to the filing of the present motions. Plaintiff did not submit an opposition.

Legal Standard

A plaintiff may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030. A party may propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and any additional number of official form interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)¿¿¿

¿¿

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).)¿¿¿

¿¿

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿The party propounding the discovery requests may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to compel initial discovery responses does not have any meet and confer requirements.¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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 as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿¿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.)¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

Analysis

It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve timely initial discovery responses despite several extensions. Further, Plaintiff did not submit any opposition or any documentation showing that the discovery responses at issue were provided prior to the hearing date. Consequently, Defendant's motions to compel are GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit verified discovery responses to the SROGs, FROGs and RFPs without objections within 30 days from today.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,800.00 for each motion. Given the simplicity of the motions and the absence of an opposition, the Court exercises discretion and reduces the sanction amount to $2,000 for all three motions. Plaintiff and his counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $2000 to Defendant within 20 days of today’s date.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿¿

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.