Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV15784, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV15784, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15784 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONES, Hearing Date: 5/9/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV15784 VARTANUSH VARTANI vs CITY OF GLENDALE

Moving Party: Defendant Allen Building

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SETS ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED.

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 and Conclusion

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present case. On November 21, 2023, Defendant Allen Building LLC served its Form Interrogatories, set one and special interrogatories, set one on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s responses were due on December 23, 2023. Defendant granted Plaintiff several extensions, but as of March 22, 2024, no responses have been served. Defendant now moves the Court to compel initial responses to its Form interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Sets One.

Plaintiff filed an opposition only to Defendant’s motion to deem RFAs admitted, scheduled for a hearing on May 13, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel FROG and SROG. In its reply to the opposition, Defendant stated that Plaintiff did not serve responses to the interrogatories.

Thus, Defendant’s motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide complete responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of today without objections.

Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,660 for the two motions. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s non-response forced Defendant to incur attorney’s fees by filing the present and finds the amount of sanctions requested reasonable for two motions, but the Court reduces the amount because no opposition was filed. And, thus, no Reply was filed. Consequently, Plaintiff and her counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $1000.00 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.