Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV28050, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 12, 2021. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Luis Manuel Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Rafael Keith Venegas (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 25, alleging a cause of action for Motor Vehicle.

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the following four unopposed discovery motions: (1) a motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Form Interrogatories Motion”); (2) a motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Special Interrogatories Motion”); (3) a motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Production of Documents Motion”); and (4) a motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of facts and genuineness of documents in Set One of Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (the “RFA Motion”)(collectively, the “Motions”).

The Motions each seek sanctions against Defendant and/or Defendant’s counsel of record, Chavez Legal Group, jointly and severally in the amount of $900.00.

Any opposition to the Motions was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) The Court will address the Motions in this one ruling.

“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 of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (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.” (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).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. A court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel George Kurdoghlian (“Kurdoghlian”), in support of the Form Interrogatories Motion, declares that: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Request for Production of Documents, Set One; (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (4) Request for Admissions, Set One, were served on Defendant on October 24, 2023, and no responses have been received to any of the propounded discovery. (Kurdoghlian Decl., ¶¶ 2-4 and Exhibits A-E.)

As to monetary sanctions, counsel declares that he has spent 2 hours drafting the Form Interrogatories Motion and expects to spend 1 hour preparing for, attending, and presenting oral argument at the hearing on the motion. (Id., ¶ 8.) Counsel’s total time claimed on the Form Interrogatories Motion is 3 hours at an hourly rate of $300, thus totaling $900.00. (Id.)

Initially, the Court notes that all the declarations in support of the Motions are essentially identical and the exhibits attached to counsel’s declarations in support of each of the Motions are identical. Counsel requests the same amount of monetary sanctions pursuant to each of the Motions.

Since the Form Interrogatories Motion is unopposed, the Court awards Plaintiff sanctions in the reasonable amount of $600 as to the Form Interrogatories Motion, which represents 2 hours of work on the Form Interrogatories Motion. The motion is straightforward in nature and not complex.

The Court references and incorporates its discussion from above as to the Form Interrogatories Motion.

The Court GRANTS the Special Interrogatories Motion as it is unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Since the Special Interrogatories Motion is unopposed, essentially identical to the Form Interrogatories Motion, and the relative brevity of the motion (which only cites to the statute), the Court awards Plaintiff sanctions in the reasonable amount of $300.00 as to the Special Interrogatories Motion, which represents 1 hour of work on the Special Interrogatories Motion. The motion is straightforward in nature and not complex.

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

The Court references and incorporates its discussion from above as to the Form Interrogatories Motion.

The Court GRANTS the Production of Documents Motion as it is unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission “[t]he party to whom the request was directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [the] motion.” (Id.)

The Court references and incorporates its discussion as the Form Interrogatories Motion.

The Court GRANTS the RFA Motion as it is unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Since the RFA Motion is unopposed and given the relative brevity of the motion, the Court awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $150.00 as to the RFA Motion, which represents 0.5 hours of work on such motion. Plaintiff requests a filing fee as to the RFA Motion; however, the declaration in support of such motion does not state the filing fee that was incurred.

Defendant is ordered to serve complete, verified, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within 30 days of notice of this order. The RFAs are hereby deemed admitted.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, Chavez Legal Group, are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1200 within 30 days of notice of this order. This amount represents total monetary sanctions as to the Form Interrogatories Motion, Special Interrogatories Motion, Request for Production Motion, and RFA Motion.

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