Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV41974, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV41974, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41974 Hearing Date: February 28, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint filed: 11/15/2021

Trial date: 10/1/2024

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Decision

Hearing Date: 2/28/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name: AUGUSTA MATOS vs ROSS STORES, INC.

Case No.: 21STCV41974

Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTEROGGATORIES, SET ONE AND SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Defendant ROSS STORES, INC

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Request for Production, Set One, is GRANTED

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories - General, Set One, is GRANTED

Defendant’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED

BACKGROUND

This premises liability case was initiated on November 15, 2021, but the proof of service was not filed until February 23, 2023. On March 24, 2023, the Defendant served special interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories – general set one, and request for production set one to Plaintiff. The deadline to respond was April 25, 2023. On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension to provide the discovery responses by July 6, 2023. However, as of January 10, 2024, the date when the current motions were submitted, Plaintiff has failed to respond to any of the discovery requests.

ANALYSIS

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 initial 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.)

¿¿

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).)¿¿

Here, Defendant served the three discovery requests at issue on March 24, 2023. (Exhibit A to Declaration of Cathy M. Diehl for MTC Special Interrogatories, Exhibit A to Declaration of Cathy M. Diehl for MTC Request for Productions, Exhibit A to Declaration of Cathy M. Diehl for MTC Form Interrogatories (Collectively as “Diehl Decls.”).) The responses for the discovery requests were due on April 25, 2023. Plaintiff's attorney requested an extension on June 5, 2023, to submit discovery responses by July 6, 2023. (Exhibit C to Diehl Decls.) However, no responses were provided as of January 10, 2024, the date on which the motions were filed. (Diehl Decls. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions to compel are GRANTED.

Plaintiff's failure to respond necessitated the filing of the current three motions to compel, with the Defendant seeking monetary sanctions of $1,170 for each motion. This calculation is based on 2 hours to draft each motion, 2 hours to review any opposition and draft a reply, 2 hours preparing for and appearing at the hearing, at a rate of $185 per hour, and a filing fee of $60. (Diehl Decls. ¶ 8.)

The court finds that allocating 2 hours for preparing each motion is reasonable. However, since no opposition was filed, no time is deemed necessary for reviewing oppositions or preparing reply briefs. Since the hearing for all motions will be conducted simultaneously, the court considers 1 hour to attend the hearing as reasonable. Therefore, the total sanctions for the three motions amount to 7 hours at the rate of $185 per hour plus $180 in filing fees, for a total amount of $1,475. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $1,475.00.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is to provide responses, without objection, within 20 days of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1475, to be paid within 20 days of this order.

The moving party is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

· Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

· 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.¿