Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV04856, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04856    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

                    I.INTRODUCTION 

On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff Svetlana Dreyfuss (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Spire Hospitality, LLC, AWH Burbank Hotel, LLC, Los Angeles Marriot Burbank, Los Angeles Marriot Airport Hotel, Grill Concepts Management, Inc., The Daily Grill Burbank, and Does 1 through 100 alleging two causes of action for (1) General Negligence and (2) Premise Liability. Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell while at the premises located at 2500 N. Hollywood Way. Burbank, CA 91505.

On December 13, 2022, Defendant Grill Concepts Management, Inc., dba The Daily Grill Burbank, erroneously sued as Grill Concepts Management, Inc and The Daily Grill Burbank, (“Defendant”) filed an Answer.

On May 2, 2023, Defendant filed three Motions to Compel, one related to form interrogatories, one to special interrogatories and one to requests for production of documents. As of January 26, 2024, no oppositions had been filed, but Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration on January 24, 2024, indicating that he spoke with Plaintiff on January 23, 2024, and she intends to provide immediate responses to the propounded discovery without objection. Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration on January 25, 2024.

The Motions to Compel all involve the same legal principles, which the Court will address here only in reference to the interrogatories, but which apply equally to the requests for production of documents.

                 II.LEGAL STANDARD 

A party to whom interrogatories 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).)¿ The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.¿ All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.¿ (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)¿Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿  

Under California 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.)¿ 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories 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).)

              III.DISCUSSION 

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff on December 12, 2022. (Abbasi Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel office stated they were having difficulty with email, February 15, 2023 was agreed to as the date of service for the previously propounded discovery. (Id., ¶ 5.) No responses were received on March 17, 2023; Defendant followed up with a meet and confer letter. (Id., ¶ 6.) As of April 25, 2023, no responses have been provided. (Id., ¶7.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that they have been contacted Plaintiff on January 23, 2024, and will provide verified, objection free responses “immediately.” (Fink Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendant is entitled to responses. Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to the Form Interrogatories that were served on December 12, 2022, and again on February 15, 2023. As stated above, under CCP §§ 2030.290, when a party fails to provide responses to timely propounded discovery, a party may move for an order compelling responses.

Defendant requests sanctions of $1,005.00 to cover 5.4 hours of attorney time at $175.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee for each of the three discovery motions.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel initial responses, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple discovery motions, three in this matter, the Court sets sanctions in the total reasonable amount of $1,180,

              IV.CONCLUSION 

Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses are GRANTED.  Plaintiff is to provide responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production within 20 days of this ruling.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions of $1,180 to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice. 

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. 

Dated: January 31, 2024