Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV02550, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02550    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Eun Chu Kim (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Diego Eduardo Chiguil Chan (“Defendant”)

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 7, 2021. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff Eun Chu Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Diego Eduardo Chiguil Chan (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 20, alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.

On July 7, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion to compel Defendant’s responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories (the “Motion”).[1] Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions “against Defendant in the amount of $2,061.65 if [the] motion is opposed or $1,061.65 if [the] motion is unopposed.” (Motion, 2:6-8.)  

On January 18, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion, to which Plaintiff replied on January 25, 2024.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“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).) 

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  

          Plaintiff’s counsel, Howard B. Kim (“Kim”), declares that on August 9, 2023, he electronically served Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories on Defendant. (Kim Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel granted defense counsel a two-week extension to respond to such discovery, which extended the response date to September 22, 2023. (Id., ¶ 3; Exhibit 2.) Counsel declares that no responses to the discovery have been received. (Id., ¶ 4.)

          In support of the opposition, Defendant’s counsel, M. Reza Lajevardi, Esq. (“Lajevardi”), declares that Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories on January 18, 2024 (Lajevardi Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit B.) Counsel declares that there is a “high caseload of over eighty cases due to high turnover and management changes at [counsel’s] firm.” (Id., ¶ 5.)

          In support of the reply, Kim declares that Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories on January 18, 2024. (Kim Reply Decl., ¶ 2.)

          Analysis

          Because verified responses were provided to the interrogatories that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, that issue is now moot. [2]  

          The issue of sanctions, however, is still appropriate to be addressed.  In this regard, because Defendant failed to provide timely interrogatory responses, Plaintiff had to file a motion to compel.  Under these circumstances, sanctions are appropriate.  (See CCP section 2023.030; California Rule of Court 3.1384).   Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,061.65.

IV.     CONCLUSION

         The court finds the motion to compel moot and GRANTS the request for sanctions in the amount of $1061.65, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of the date of notice of this order.

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 31st day of January 2024