Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2019-01054110, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

3. Motion to Compel Production

4. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions filed by Inmode Aesthetic Solutions on 8/12/22

A. Merits

Here, Cross-Complainants have established that verified responses to the discovery at issue have been provided. Thus, the motions are moot as they pertain to compelling responses.

A meet and confer was not required before bringing the present motions to compel. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 [“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.”].)

B. Sanctions

The only issue that remains is whether Cross-Defendant is entitled to sanctions for Cross-Complainants failure to timely provide discovery responses. Cross-Defendant requests $2,260 (5.5 hours at $400/hour plus $60 filing fee) in sanctions for each motion. Cross-Complainants argue that the request for sanctions has not been made correctly because Cross-Defendant does not cite to the correct statutory basis for the sanctions.

Mainly, Cross-Complainants cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 for their contention that the request for sanctions is improper. Section 2023.040 states:

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Here, the request for sanctions appears to comply with this statute. Notably, in the motion to compel production the moving party does not cite to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280 (which governs mandatory sanctions for failure to provide timely responses). However, the moving party clearly identified that it is seeking discovery sanctions and cites to valid authority to recover sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010-2023.030.)

Cross-Complainants also argue that sanctions should not be awarded because Cross-Defendant does not reference California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.1 Whether moving party referenced rule 3.1348 is irrelevant as it is not required for moving party to reference this statute to be entitled to sanctions.

The request for sanctions is a bit steep for the amount of work required to bring a motion to compel after no responses have been provided and much of the motions are identical (likely a copy and paste job). A reasonable amount for all three motions would be 2 hours at $400/hour plus the $60 filing fee for each motion.

Tentative Ruling: Cross-Defendant InMode Aesthetic Solutions filed three discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form and Special Interrogatories, ROA # 280; (2) Motion to Compel Production, ROA # 281; and (3) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admission, ROA #282. The motions are MOOT as Cross-Complainants Olympia Family Medicine LLC and Bernice Natalie Mucius-Penha, M.D. established that they served verified responses to the discovery.

Cross-Defendant InMode Aesthetic Solutions requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $980.00 to be paid within the next thirty (30) days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010-2023.030, 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c) and 2033.280(c).)

Moving party to give notice.