Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00370, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV00370 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 Dept: C
RANDA ISSA v. TYRONE
MONTERO
CASE NO.: 23NWCV00370
HEARING: 12/14/23 @
9:30 a.m.
#3
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendant Tyrone
Montero’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant
responses, without objections, to Set One of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories
within 30 days of notice of this order.
Defendant Tyrone
Montero’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant
responses, without objections, to Set One of Defendant’s Special
Interrogatories within 30 days of notice of this order.
Defendant Tyrone
Montero’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents
(Set One) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified,
complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of
Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents within 30 days of notice of
this order.
Defendant Tyrone
Montero’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
counsel of record, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of the Law Offices of Lawrence
Hoodack are ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount
of $584.95, jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice of this order. This
amount represents total monetary sanctions as to the Form Interrogatories
Motion, Special Interrogatories Motion, and Request for Production Motion.
Moving party to give notice.
No Oppositions filed as of December 13, 2023.
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on February 3, 2021. On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff Randa Issa
(“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Tyrone Montero (“Defendant”)
and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes a single cause of action for Negligence.
On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed and served the following
three unopposed discovery motions: (1) a motion to
compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and
for sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his/her attorney of record in the amount
of $461.65 (the “Form Interrogatories Motion”); (2) a motion to compel
Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for
sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his/her attorney of record in the amount of
$461.65 (the “Special Interrogatories Motion”); and (3) a motion to compel
Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set
One, and for sanctions against Plaintiff and/or his/her attorney of record in
the amount of $461.65 (the “Request for Production Motion”) (collectively, the
“Motions”).
The failure to file an opposition creates an inference that
the motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the
Motions. Any opposition to the Motions was required to have been filed and
served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005,
subd. (b).)
The Court will address the Motions in this one ruling.
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).)
“Any party may
obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents,
tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information
in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to timely respond to
demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling “[t]he party to whom the
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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.300(b) provides that “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order
compelling response to the demand.”
Code Civ. Proc. §
2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is “[f]ailing 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 “[m]aking or
opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to
compel or limit discovery.” A court has discretion to “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, 791.)
THE FORM INTERROGATORIES MOTION
Based on the declaration of counsel,
Plaintiff has failed to provide discovery responses. The Court therefore finds
it appropriate to compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Set One of Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories and the Court GRANTS the Form
Interrogatories Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, complete, and
code-compliant responses, without objections, to such discovery within 30 days
of notice of this order.
As to monetary sanctions, the Court exercises
its discretion and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of
the Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack, in the reasonable amount of $261.65. Such
amount represents 1 hour of work on such motion plus the $61.65 filing fee. The
Court reduces the hours given the simplicity of the motion, the fact that all
the Motions are substantially similar, and the fact that the Motions are unopposed.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of the Law Offices of
Lawrence Hoodack are ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the
total amount of $261.65, jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice of
this order as to the Form Interrogatories Motion.
THE SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES MOTION
Defendant served
Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on May 1, 2023. (Fakih Decl.,
¶ 3 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Special Interrogatories Motion,
neither responses nor a request for an extension have been received. (Id.,
¶ 5.) Defendant is seeking sanctions in the amount of $461.65 as to the Special
Interrogatories Motion, at the hourly rate of $200 per hour which represents: 2
hours preparing the motion for a total of $400.00 and a filing fee of $61.65. (Id.,
¶ 7.)
Based on the
declaration of counsel, Plaintiff has failed to provide discovery responses.
The Court therefore finds it appropriate to compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Set
One of Defendant’s Special Interrogatories and the Court GRANTS the Special
Interrogatories Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, complete, and
code-compliant responses, without objections, to such discovery within 30 days
of notice of this order.
As to monetary
sanctions, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s
request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of
record, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of the Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack, in the
reasonable amount of $161.65. Such amount represents 0.5 hours of work on such
motion plus the $61.65 filing fee. The Court reduces the hours given the
simplicity of the motion, the fact that all the Motions are substantially
similar, and the fact that the Motions are unopposed. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
counsel, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of the Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack are
ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount of $161.65,
jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice of this order as to the Special
Interrogatories Motion.
THE REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION MOTION
Defendant served
Plaintiff with a Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on May 1, 2023.
(Fakih Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.) As of the date of the Request for Production Motion,
neither responses nor a request for an extension have been received. (Id.,
¶ 5.) Defendant is seeking sanctions in the amount of $461.65 as to the Request
for Production Motion, at the hourly rate of $200 per hour, which represents: 2
hours preparing the motion for a total of $400.00 and a filing fee of $61.65. (Id.,
¶ 7.)
Based on the
declaration of counsel, Plaintiff has failed to provide discovery responses.
The Court therefore finds it appropriate to compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Set
One of Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents and the Court GRANTS the
Request for Production Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified,
complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to such discovery
within 30 days of notice of this order.
As to monetary
sanctions, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s
request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of
record, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of the Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack, in the
reasonable amount of $161.65. Such amount represents 0.5 hours of work on such
motion plus the $61.65 filing fee. The Court reduces the hours given the
simplicity of the motion, the fact that all the Motions are substantially
similar, and the fact that the Motions are unopposed. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
counsel, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq. of the Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack are
ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount of $161.65,
jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice of this order as to the Request
for Production Motion.
CONCLUSION
Given that the Motions are all unopposed there is an
inference that they are meritorious under Sexton v. Superior Court (1997)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410. The Court GRANTS the Motions.
The Court GRANTS the
Form Interrogatories Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified,
complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of
Defendant’s Form Interrogatories within 30 days of notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS the
Special Interrogatories Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified,
complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of
Defendant’s Special Interrogatories within 30 days of notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS the
Request for Production Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified,
complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of
Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents within 30 days of notice of
this order.
As to monetary
sanctions, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions
and ORDERS Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Lawrence Hoodack, Esq.
of the Law Offices of Lawrence Hoodack to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant
in the total amount of $584.95, jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice
of this order. This amount represents total monetary sanctions as to the Form
Interrogatories Motion, Special Interrogatories Motion, and Request for
Production Motion.