Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00003883-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00003883-CU-PO-CTL HILTON VS 7-ELEVEN INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Tracy Hilton's motions to (1) compel further requests to requests for production, (2) compel further responses to requests for admission, (3) compel further responses to form interrogatories, and (4) compel further responses to special interrogatories are DENIED. Hilton's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,500.

Defendant 7-Eleven Inc. filed its opposition to these motions a week late. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The court exercises its discretion to consider the untimely brief, but it expects all future papers to be timely filed and may refuse to consider any that are late. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).) The opposition and accompanying declaration state that further verified responses to all sets of discovery were served after this motion was filed, and Hilton did not complain about the sufficiency of those further responses. The motions to compel are therefore denied as unnecessary. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) However, monetary sanctions are mandatory unless 7-Eleven demonstrates that it acted with substantial justification or than sanctions would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).) That is the rule notwithstanding the fact 7-Eleven belatedly served further responses after the motions were filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a); see also Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.) Here, 7-Eleven was not substantially justified in responding with blanket boilerplate objections merely to buy itself more time to serve proper substantive responses-responses that were still not served until more than a month later. Nor would it be unjust to award sanctions in this scenario. (See Manlin v. Milner (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1024 [boilerplate objections can be sanctionable]; Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 [same].) For the four unopposed motions, Hilton requests sanctions for 19.5 hours of attorney time. Having reviewed the motions, the time requested is excessive. The court will award a total of 6 hours.

Hilton's attorney (Sutton Shapiro) is inconsistent with respect to his hourly rate. For two of the motions, he declares it is $500/hr. For the other two motions, he declares it is $250/hr. The court adopts the lower rate.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3031488  41 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HILTON VS 7-ELEVEN INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00003883-CU-PO-CTL The motions to compel further responses are therefore denied, but Hilton is awarded a total of $1,500 (6 hours at $250/hr) in monetary sanctions against 7-Eleven.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3031488  41