Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV31747, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31747    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Johnnie Cameron (“Cameron”)    

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident. On September 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Anthony Hillsman-Espinoza and Johnnie Cameron filed a complaint against Defendants Guadalupe Guerrero Perez (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 25, alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff Johnnie Cameron (“Cameron”) filed and served the following two unopposed discovery motions: (1) motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Cameron’s Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion”)[1]; and (2) a motion for an order deeming admitted truth of facts and genuineness of documents (the “Cameron RFA Motion”)[2](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 $1,200.00 plus filing fees of $60.00.

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.

II.          THE CAMERON FORM INTERROGATORIES MOTION

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(a).) If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the 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(a).) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(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.)

Cameron’s counsel Anthony M. Crisci (“Crisci”), in support of the Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion, declares that Cameron’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, was served on Defendant on October 17, 2023, and no responses have been received. (Crisci Decl., ¶¶ 2-4 and Exhibits A-C.)

As to monetary sanctions, Crisci declares that he has spent 2 hours drafting the Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion and expects to spend 2 hours filing a reply, preparing for the hearing, and attending oral argument. (Id., ¶ 6.) Crisci’s total time claimed on the Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion is 4 hours at an hourly rate of $300, thus totaling $1,200. (Id.)

The Court GRANTS the Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion as it is unopposed. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

The Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion is unopposed and is relatively brief. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have filed essentially identical discovery motions and are seeking a substantial amount of monetary sanctions per motion. The Court finds the sanctions request of $1,200.00 plus the $60.00 filing fee is unreasonable. The Court awards Cameron sanctions in the reasonable amount of $500.00 as to the Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion,

III.     THE CAMERON RFA MOTION

          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(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(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(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.)

Crisci declares that Cameron’s Request for Admissions, Set One was served on Defendant and no response has been received. (Crisci Decl., ¶¶ 2-4 and Exhibits A-C.) The Court incorporates its discussion as to monetary sanctions from above as Crisci requests the same amount of sanctions in each of the Motions, and the declarations in support of each motion are essentially identical.  

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

The Cameron RFA Motion is unopposed and is relatively brief. As stated above, Plaintiffs have filed essentially identical discovery motions and are seeking a substantial amount of monetary sanctions per motion. The Court finds the sanctions request of $1,200.00 plus the $60.00 filing fee is unreasonable. Counsel has essentially copy/pasted each of the Motions with minor changes. The Court therefore awards Cameron sanctions in the reasonable amount of $135.00 as to the Cameron RFA Motion, which represents 0.25 hours of work on such motion plus the $60.00 filing fee. The motion is straightforward in nature and is not complex.

IV.     CONCLUSION

         Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motions.

Defendant is ordered to serve complete, verified, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Cameron’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of notice of this order.

Cameron’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, Chavez Legal Group, are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Cameron, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $695.00 within 30 days of notice of this order. This amount represents total monetary sanctions as to the Cameron Form Interrogatories Motion and the Cameron RFA Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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 this 27th day of November 2023