Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV40224, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV40224    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Andre Michalangelo Adams (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on or about November 3, 2019. On November 2, 2021, Plaintiff Asmare Yossef (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Andre Michalangelo (“Defendant”), Herz Corporation, Lyft Corporation and DOES 1 to 50, alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle.

On September 1, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 12, 2024, Defendant filed and served the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses, without objections, to Defendant’s first set of form interrogatories (“FROGS”), special interrogatories (“SPROGS”), and request for production (“RPD”).[1] Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,740.00 for the motion to compel interrogatories and $1,740.00 for the motion to compel RPDs. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.  

On motion, a party may be relieved from its waiver of objections if: (1) the party subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance “with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240” and (2) “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)

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.)

III.    DISCUSSION  

Defendant’s counsel Cheyenne Page declares that on September 11, 2023, she served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production set one by electronic transmission to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Page Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exhib. A, B.) Plaintiff was required to serve verified responses to the interrogatories by October 13, 2023. Although not required, Defendant’s counsel made efforts to meet and confer regarding the due discovery responses. Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the email, but ultimately failed to provide the requested responses and did not respond to Defendant’s counsel’s most recent email requesting responses. Accordingly, the motions to compel FROGS, SPROGS, and RPDs are GRANTED. 

Given the relative brevity and straightforward nature of the motions and the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. The Court AWARDS Defendant monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1750.00 against Defendant.  The Court reduces the hours given the straightforward nature of the Motions, the duplicative nature of them, and the fact that there was no opposition to either motion.

IV.     CONCLUSION

         Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motions.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and his counsel are, jointly and severally, ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $1750.00 within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. This amount represents total monetary sanctions as to the Motions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

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 8th day of February 2024