Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV17691, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff Paul Hopkins (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, Villa Romano Homeowners Association (“Villa Romano”), Villa Rapallo Homeowners Association, Villa St Tropez Homeowners Association, Villa Marina Council, Inc., Allstate Property Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100 for injuries arising from a bicycle accident on May 28, 2021. On January 25, 2023, Villa Romano served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Having received no responses, Villa Romano proceeded to file these motions compelling Plaintiff to provide responses. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. ( Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 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 has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

The motions to compel are unopposed. The Court construes the lack of opposition from Plaintiff as a concession that Villa Romano’s arguments are meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶¿9:105.10.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Villa Romano’s motions to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court GRANTS Villa Romano’s requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $511.65 for each motion, comprised of 1.0 hour preparing each motion, 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing on the motions, for a total of 1.5 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $300.00, plus the filing fee of $61.65 for each motion. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel must pay said monetary sanctions within 20 days of the date of this Order.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court