Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV00821, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00821    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:          3/24/22  

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Department 27  

Tentative Ruling  

Hearing Date:                               3/5/2024 at 1:30 p.m.  

Case No./Name:          23STCV00821 JANESE JOHNSON vs MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al. 

Motion:                              DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; MOTION TO COMPEL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

Moving Party:                 Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Responding Party:      Plaintiff JANESE JOHNSON 

Notice:                                Sufficient  

Ruling:                               DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO COMPEL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.

BACKGROUND  

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present slip and fall case. On March 23, 2023, Defendant City of Los Angeles (City of LA) served its Special Interrogatories Set One and Request for Production Set One on Plaintiff. (Krueger Decl. ¶ 2.) The deadline to respond was April 25, 2023; however, no responses were provided by that date. (Krueger Decl. ¶ 4.) Consequently, on June 27, 2023. Defendant brought the present motions to compel.  

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff served discovery responses to Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Special Interrogatories Set One and Request for Production Set One. (Reyes Decl. ISO Non-Opposition to City of Los Angeles’ Motions ¶ 3.) Plaintiff does not oppose the present motions. 

ANALYSIS  

1.  Interrogatories and Requests for Production

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).)  

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.)   

It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve timely initial responses to Defendant City of LA’s Special Interrogatories Set One and Requests for Production Set One. However, Plaintiff served verified responses to the discovery requests at issue on February 21, 2024, before the hearing date. Consequently, the present motions are now moot and are therefore DENIED.  

2.  Sanctions 

Plaintiff's failure to provide timely responses necessitated Defendant's filing of the present motions, leading to Defendant incurring attorney's fees. Defendant has requested $1,793.00 in attorneys' fees for each motion based on two (2) hours researching, drafting, and preparing the instant motion. Defendant expected to spend approximately two (2) hours reviewing that opposition and preparing a Reply Brief. Defendant expected to spend one (1) hour in connection with attendance at the hearing of the instant motion; however, since this is one of three (3) motions set for hearing for Defendants, Counsel reduced the hearing time allocated to this motion to approximately one-third of one hour. The hourly rate is $400 per hour. In addition, the filing of this motion was subject to a $60.00 filing fee. (Krueger Decl. ¶ 5.)  Considering the duplicative nature of the motion, simplicity of the issues involved, and Plaintiff’s declaration of non-opposition, the Court hereby reduces the sanctions awarded from what was requested.  The court finds it reasonable to allocate two hours for the preparation of each motion, but reduced time for the hearing for each motion to fifteen minutes (¼ of an hour). Consequently, the court hereby orders Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $1000 to Defendant City of LA, payable within 30 days of today. 

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 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.