Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01210, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01210 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: C
Katherine Rivera, et
al. vs Santos M. De Jesus
CASE
NO.: 22NWCV01210
HEARING:
10/31/23
#1 TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiffs’
Motions to Compel Responses to RFPs, FROGs and SROGs are GRANTED.
The
Court GRANTS sanctions in the reduced total amount of $1,558.25.
Moving
parties are ordered to give notice.
Background
On November 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Katherine Rivera and
Marbella Arredondo (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Santos M.
De Jesus (“Defendant”) alleging one cause of action for negligence arising from
a motor vehicle accident occurring on November 27, 2020.
On December 6, 2022, Plaintiffs served Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, and Demands
for Production of Documents to Defendant. (Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff
Arredondo FROG Motion, ¶ 2; Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Arredondo and Rivera
RFP Motion, ¶ 2; Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Rivera FROG Motion, ¶ 2;
Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Rivera SROG Motion, ¶ 2; Vardanyan Decl. re
Plaintiff Arredondo SROG Motion, ¶ 2.)
On January 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent courtesy
copies of propounded discovery sets via electronic mail. On the same day,
Plaintiff’s counsel granted a unilateral extension of time up to and including
February 27, 2023. (Id., ¶ 3.)
On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and
confer letter to Defendant’s counsel to remind them that they had not yet
responded to Plaintiff’s initial written discovery. (Id., ¶ 4.)
As of the date of the filing of the instant motions,
Defendant has failed to respond to the discovery request or request a further
extension. (Id., ¶ 6.)
Legal
Standards
A.
Motions to Compel Responses.
A
party 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 of Civil Procedure section 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., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd.
(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070,
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 who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion
to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, unless the
court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (c).)
B.
Sanctions.
Misuse of the discovery process constituting conduct subject to
sanctions include “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of
discovery” and “failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an
opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve
informally any dispute concerning discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,
subds. (d) and (i).) 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 Civ. Proc., § 2023.030,
subd. (a).) All discovery motions require a meet and confer declaration stating
facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of
each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Discussion
A.
Motions to Compel Responses.
Each Plaintiff timely served Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and jointly served Demands for Production of Documents to
Defendant on December 6, 2022. (Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Arredondo FROG
Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. A; Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Arredondo and Rivera RFP
Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. A; Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Rivera FROG Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. A;
Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Rivera SROG Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. A; Vardanyan Decl. re
Plaintiff Arredondo SROG Motion, ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
Defendant had 30
days to respond but did not do so. Although not required to do
so, on January 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent courtesy copies of propounded
discovery sets via electronic mail. On the same day, Plaintiff’s counsel
granted a unilateral extension of time up to and including February 27, 2023. (Id.,
¶ 3.)
On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel again attempted to
resolve the discovery requests without judicial intervention by sending a meet
and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel to remind them that they had not yet
responded to Plaintiff’s initial written discovery. (Id., ¶ 4.)
Despite Plaintiff’s efforts, no response had been received
at the time of filing, and despite meet and confer efforts no responses were
filed at the time of the filing of the motion. (Id., ¶ 6.)
Because
Defendant has failed to respond to the
discovery requests, Defendant is compelled to
respond to the requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and
special interrogatories, without objection, including
objections based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.300 subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) For the interrogatories, the failure to
respond also waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.
B. Sanctions
Additionally, failure to respond to discovery requests is misuse
of the discovery process subject to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)
The court is required to award monetary sanctions against Plaintiff unless
Plaintiff can show they “acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) The monetary
sanction shall be in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.030.) Counsel for Plaintiffs requests three separate awards of
sanctions each for $811.65 (calculated at one hour drafting the motion, one hour
reviewing the opposition, and drafting a reply, and one hour attending the
hearing at a rate of $250.00 per hour plus $61.65 filing fee). (Vardanyan Decl. re
Plaintiff Arredondo FROG Motion, ¶¶ 7-8;
Vardanyan Decl. re
Plaintiff Arredondo and Rivera RFP Motion, ¶¶ 7-8; Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff
Rivera FROG Motion, ¶¶ 7-8; Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Rivera SROG Motion, ¶¶
7-8, Vardanyan Decl. re Plaintiff Arredondo SROG Motion, ¶¶ 7-8.)
Utilizing a lodestar
approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, including the
simplicity of the motion, the lack of the opposition, and similarity of the
motions, the Court finds the requested sanctions are unreasonable for the work
performed in connection with the pending motions against Defendant. Sanctions are awarded for the reasonable
amount $1,250.00, reflecting five hours incurred at $250.00 per hour (four
hours for drafting the motions, and an hour for attending the hearing on the instant
motions, plus the filing fees of $61.65 for each motion.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Responses to RFPs,
FROGs and SROGs are GRANTED.
The Court GRANTS
sanctions in the reduced total amount of $1,558.25.
Moving parties are
ordered to give notice.