Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV00821, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00821    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: MV Public Transportation, Inc.

I.            INTRODUCTION

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present slip and fall case. On May 14, 2024, Defendant MV Public Transportation, Inc. (“MVPT”) served its Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 3.) On June 19, 2024, MVPT’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting discovery responses. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 4.) As of the date of filing the instant motion, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the supplemental demand for production or seek an extension of time to respond. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 5.) Consequently, on November 27, 2024, MVPT brought the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses and request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff does not oppose the instant motion.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)    

III.        DISCUSSION

1.   Motion to Compel Responses

Here, on May 14, 2024, MVPT served its Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 3.) On June 19, 2024, MVPT’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting discovery responses. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 4.) As of the date of filing the instant motion, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the supplemental demand for production or seek an extension of time to respond. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not oppose this motion. Thus, MVPT is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to the Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS MVPT’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

2.   Request for Monetary Sanctions

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 to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to MVPT’s Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, a misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and has provided no substantial justification or other circumstances to make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court imposes a monetary sanction on Plaintiff for their failure to respond to MVPT’s discovery requests. 

MVPT has requested $810.00 in attorneys' fees based on two (2) hours spent preparing the instant motion and one (1) hour to be spent at the hearing of the instant motion. (Deenihan Decl., ¶ 6.) The hourly rate is $250 per hour. (Id.) In addition, the filing of this motion was subject to a $60.00 filing fee. (Id.) The Court finds it reasonable to reduce the time for the hearing to thirty minutes. Consequently, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $685.00 to MVPT, payable within 30 days of today.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS MVPT’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

The Court GRANTS MVPT’s Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $685.00. 

MVPT 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 20th day of December 2024