Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03298, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03298, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03298 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: C

Jean Gluck vs Guy Christensen

Case No.: 23NWCV03298

Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Guy Christensen’s Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) are MOOT. Sanctions are imposed in the reasonable sum of $1050.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 60 days.

Moving party to give notice.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff Jean Gluck (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against Defendant Guy Christensen (“Defendant”) based upon an incident at The Gardens Casino located at 11871 E. Carson Street, Hawaiian Gardens, California, 90716, on December 16, 2022. Plaintiff alleges Defendant made a sexual advance towards her and grabbed her buttocks. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant moves to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).

Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories or document demands, 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).)

Discussion

On November 13, 2023, Defendant served upon Plaintiff Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Zacher Decl., ¶2; Exhibit A.) Responses were originally due on December 12, 2023, but Defendant agreed to an extension to January 18, 2024. (Id., ¶2.) As of the date the instant motions were filed (February 14, 2024) no responses had been received from Plaintiff. (Id., ¶3.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff states that code-compliant verified responses were served to all discovery requests, without objections, on October 28, 2024. (Bertch Decl., ¶ 2.)

Because Plaintiff has served responses, the motions to compel responses is MOOT.

Sanctions

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 she “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.)

Defendant requests $2,511.50 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, $2,861.50 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents, $2,511.50 in sanctions for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s counsel explains that his professional calendar was impacted with numerous litigation deadlines, he has no staff or associate attorneys as a sole practitioner, he hired a contract attorney to assist him with litigation matters, and that as President of the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association his time was greatly strained. (Bertch Decl., ¶ 3.)

The Court determines that sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff delayed nearly one year before providing responses. However, given the simplicity of the moving papers and the lack of any substantive opposition, the Court imposes sanctions in the sum of $1050.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 60 days.