Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00332, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00332, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00332 Hearing Date: October 24, 2023 Dept: C

TECANHUEHUE v. H-T GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00332

HEARING: 10/24/23 @ 9:30 a.m.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff ADRIANA CORTES TECANHUEHUE’s motion to compel responses to written discovery for form interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents is DENIED as MOOT. The court awards sanctions in the amount of $1500.00.

Moving party to give notice.

This breach of contract action was filed by Plaintiff ADRIANA CORTES TECANHUEHUE (Plaintiff) on May 2, 2022. Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint (FAC) was filed on August 19, 2022 and asserts the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; (2) disgorgement; (3) negligence; (4) fraud; and (5) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling responses to written discovery.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to written discovery:

Legal Standard

A responding party has 30 days after service of interrogatories and an inspection demand to serve their responses on the propounding party and/or party making the demand. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).) However, if interrogatories and inspection demand are served by electronic service, a responding party has an additional 2 court days to respond. (CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B).)

If the responding party fails to timely respond to the interrogatories, “The 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

If a responding party fails to timely respond to the inspection demand, “The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (CCP § 2031.300.)

Furthermore, the party propounding the interrogatories and/or making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories and inspection demand. (CCP §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) And “Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants H-T GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC., FELIX MADARIAGA, JESUS BLANQUEL, and MIGUEL AGUIRRE (Defendants) to respond to Form Interrogatories (FROGS), Requests for Admission (RFAs), and Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs).

Plaintiff served FROGS, RFAs, and RPDs on Defendants on April 20, 2023. (Peto Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff filed this motion to compel responses on June 1, 2023. Defendants contend they were without legal representation as of February 2023. Defendant Madariaga retained legal counsel in June and the remaining defendants retained legal counsel in August. (Danielle Joseph Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) On October 10, 2023, Defendants’ counsel discovered that Plaintiff had filed a motion to compel responses. Defendants served Plaintiff with written discovery responses on October 13, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is now moot because Defendants served verified responses to the discovery before the hearing.

Requests for Sanctions

When a request for monetary sanctions is concurrently filed with a motion to compel responses, “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) Additionally, “If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $2000.00 based upon an hourly rate of $475.00, two hours for drafting the motion, two hours for drafting a reply, two hours for preparing for the hearing and costs. The court notes that no Reply was filed. Sanctions are imposed upon Defendants, jointly and severally, in the reasonable sum of $1500.00.