Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV11774, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV11774, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11774 Hearing Date: June 27, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO COMPEL INTIAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 6/27/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV11774 AVICK SANCHEZ PARTIDA, et al. vs KATIE I. SORIANO, et al.

Moving Party: Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿Avick Partida

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: MOTION TO COMPEL INTIAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED

Legal Standard

A defendant may make a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling without leave of court at any time. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (a).) A plaintiff may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030. A party may propound 35 specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and any additional number of official form interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030, subd. (a)(1) - (a)(2).)¿¿¿

¿¿

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).)¿¿¿

¿¿

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿The party propounding the discovery requests may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to compel initial discovery responses does not have any meet and confer requirements.¿

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 submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿¿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, 791.)¿¿¿¿¿

Discussion

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff Avick Sanchez Partida and Joana Ornelas (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint. On September 11, 2023, Defendants served an initial set of written discovery, including Requests for Production of Documents and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff Avick Partida. Plaintiff received several extensions, with the final one being March 19, 2024. However, responses still have not been provided. Defendants now move the Court to compel responses.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff Partida failed to serve timely initial responses. Plaintiff did not file an opposition nor any other document showing that responses were served prior to the hearing. Thus, the present motions are granted. Plaintiff Partida is hereby ordered to serve full and complete responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Set One, without objection within 30 days of today.

Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $1,310.00 for each motion. In consideration of the duplicate nature of the motions, simplicity of the issues, and the lack of opposition, the Court exercises its discretion and lowers the sanction to a total amount of $1,300 for both motions. Consequently, the Court sanctions Plaintiff Partida in the amount of $1,300. Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $1,300 to Defendants within 30 days of today’s date.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.