Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV01482, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present negligence action arising from a motor vehicle collision. On August 30, 2024, Defendant Steven Linson (“Defendant”) served Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Miller Decls., ¶ 2.) On October 25, 2024, Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting discovery responses. (Miller Decls., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) As of the date of filing the instant motions, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Supplemental Interrogatories or Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents. (Miller Decls., ¶ 5.) Consequently, on November 18, 2024, Defendant brought the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses and requests for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff does not oppose either of the instant motions.

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.)

On August 30, 2024, Defendant served Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Miller Decls., ¶ 2.) On October 25, 2024, Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff requesting discovery responses. (Miller Decls., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) As of the date of filing the instant motions, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Supplemental Interrogatories or Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents. (Miller Decls., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff did not oppose either motion. Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to the Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents, without objections.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents.

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).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents a misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff has not opposed either 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 Defendant’s discovery requests.

For each motion, Defendant has requested $860.00 in attorney fees based on the following: two (2) hours spent on review of the file, writing the letter and preparing the motion; one (1) hour to be spent on review and analysis of anticipated opposition, and preparation of a reply brief; and one (1) hour to be spent driving to and attending the hearings on the instant motions. (Miller Decls., ¶ 6.) The hourly rate is $200 per hour. (Id.) In addition, the filing of each motion was subject to a $60.00 filing fee. (Id.)

Considering the simplicity of the issues involved and the lack of opposition or reply, the Court hereby reduces the sanctions awarded from what was requested to $650. Consequently, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $650.00 to Defendant, payable within 30 days of today.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatories.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $650.00.

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