Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV10196, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10196 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 27
Complaint Filed: 3/24/22
Hon. Lee S. Arian
Department 27
Tentative Ruling¿
Hearing Date: 3/1/2024 at 1:30 p.m.
Case No./Name: 22STCV10196 ALMA JEANETH
LOPEZ vs 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC.
Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE;
MOTION
TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Moving Party: Defendant 99 CENTS
ONLY STORES LLC.
Responding Party: Plaintiff ALMA JEANETH
LOPEZ
Notice: Sufficient
Ruling: Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories General, Set One and Special
Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This slip and fall case
was filed on March 24, 2022. On September 27, 2023, Defendant served Form
Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff. Defendant followed-up
with Plaintiff on December 5 and December 19 regarding discovery responses.
However, no responses were provided. Consequently, Defendant filed the current
motions on February 2, 2024. Plaintiff provided responses on February 26, 2024 ,along
with her opposition brief.
ANALYSIS
1.
Legal Standard
“Within 30 days after
service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are
propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding
party, unless, on motion by the propounding party, the court extends or
shortens the time to respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If the
party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,
“[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to
exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any
objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the
protection for work product ... The court, on motion, may relieve that party
from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in
substantial compliance ... (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response
was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿
¿
“The party propounding
interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the
interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)¿¿
¿
“Unlike a motion to
compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a
45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate
either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).)¿¿
¿
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.)¿
On September 27, 2023,
Defendant served Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff.
(Margolin Decl. ¶ 1.) Not receiving any responses, Defendant filed the current
motion on February 2, 2024. (Margolin Decl. ¶ 3.) Subsequently, Plaintiff
provided responses without objection to the discovery requests in question on
February 26, 2024. (Perez Decl. ¶ 3) As a result, the present motions have
become moot.
However, Plaintiff's
delay in providing timely responses necessitated Defendant's filing of the
motion, leading to the incurrence of attorney's fees. Defendant has requested
attorney's fees in the amount of $495 per motion, based on a reasonable hourly
rate of $145.00 spent as follows: two hours to draft each motion, amounting to
$290.00 and an additional 1.0 hour of attorney time to attend the motion. Along
with the $60.00 filing fee, the total fees requested per motion is $495.00.
Given that the two motions will be heard simultaneously, the time needed to
attend the motion will be consolidated to 1 hour for both motions.
Consequently, a total award of $845.00 in sanctions is GRANTED, to be paid,
jointly and severally by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, within 30 days.
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.¿