Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00037, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCV00037    Hearing Date: November 2, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

FRANCES VILLEGAS, an individual;

 

                                        Plaintiffs,

 

                                  vs.

 

 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive,

 

                                         Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

Case No.: 23AHCV0037

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR INSPECTION

 

Date:   November 2, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

This action concerns an injury Plaintiff Frances Villegas (Villegas) alleges she sustained as a result of paramedics improperly handling her and her transport to an ambulance. On January 6, 2022, Villegas alleges she fell in her home and paramedics were called. She then alleges that the paramedics attempted to pick her up and she fell a second time as a result, fracturing her right shoulder. Villegas further alleges that the paramedics failed to follow a supervisor’s order to wait for a hard gurney to transport her as her body is compromised due to lupus. Defendant County of Los Angeles (County) employed the two paramedics who allegedly injured Villegas.

Before the Court are motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand for Inspection, Set One served by Defendant County on Villegas. County served Villegas with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items, Set One. Villegas has not filed responses to either set of discovery. County is therefore entitled to the relief requested. The motions compelling a response to the form interrogatories and the demand for inspection are GRANTED.  The motions for sanctions are GRANTED.

         

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

 “Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

“Within 30 days after the service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party[.]” (CCP § 2030.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) If a party to whom interrogatories were directed fails to serve a timely response, they waive the right to any objections to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

"Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand.” (CCP § 2031. 260(a).) If a party to whom the demand for inspection fails to serve a timely response, they waive the right to any objections to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(a).) The party who made the demand may then move for an order compelling response to the inspection demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b).)

“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.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes: “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Reasonable expenses under CCP section 2023.030(a) include the time spent in researching and preparing the motion, as well as court time and travel time spent in connection with the motion. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.)

 

          III.     ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

          i. Motion

County presents evidence that on March 6, 2023, it served Villegas by mail and by electronic service with Form Interrogatories, Set One. The responses were due April 10, 2023. County presents evidence that its counsel extended the deadline to respond to April 25, 2023. (Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, p. 4: 11-14, referencing Thomas Decl., p. 9: 23-27.) Villegas did not provide responses. County presents evidence that its counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on July 29, 2023 and extended the deadline for responses to August 4, 2023. (Thomas Decl., p. 9: 28-p.10: 1-5.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that responses would be filed by August 11, 2023. (Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, p.4: 15-20, referencing Exh. 2.) No responses have been received as of the filing of this motion, September 6, 2023.

Based on the above evidence, County has established that Villegas was served with Form Interrogatories, Set One. Villegas has not provided responses. Pursuant to CCP section 2030.290(b), the Court grants the motion to compel responses to the interrogatories.

ii. Sanctions

County alleges that Villegas’s failure to provide responses to its discovery request constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, p. 6: 7-9.) This argument is well-taken. Despite multiple extensions of the deadline in which to respond, Plaintiff Villegas has not provided responses to the form interrogatories. Failing to respond to discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010(d).)

County requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,475.00 to be assessed against Villegas. County supports its request with the declaration of counsel, Allen L. Thomas. (Thomas Decl.) Thomas declares that his hourly rate is $450. (Thomas Decl. p. 10: 12-17.) Thomas declares that he has spent 1.5 hours preparing the motion and anticipates 1 hour to review the opposition and 3 hours to appear at the hearing. The Court finds the hourly rate requested reasonable. The Court declines to grant sanctions for time not spent reviewing the opposition, however, as the motion is unopposed. The Court also declines to grant 3 hours of time to attend the hearing and finds 1 hour is a more appropriate amount of time. In total, the Court awards sanctions for 2.5 hours of attorney time, 2.5 x $450/hr= $1,125.00.

          Accordingly, the Court awards County sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00.

 

B. Motion to Compel Response to Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items, Set One

          i. Motion

County presents evidence that on March 6, 2023, it also served Villegas by mail and by electronic service with Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items, Set One. Responses were due April 10, 2023. County presents evidence that its counsel extended the deadline to respond to April 25, 2023. (Motion to Compel Responses Demand Produce, p. 4: 11-14, referencing Thomas Decl., p. 9: 23-27.) Villegas did not provide responses. County presents evidence that its counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on July 29, 2023 and extended the deadline for responses to August 4, 2023. (Thomas Decl., p. 9: 28-p.10: 1-5.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that responses would be filed by August 11, 2023. (Motion to Compel Responses Demand Produce, p.4: 15-20, referencing Exh. 2.) No responses have been received as of the filing of this motion, September 6, 2023.

Based on the above evidence, County has established that Villegas was served with Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items, Set One. Villegas has not provided responses. Pursuant to CCP section 2031.300(b), the Court grants the motion to compel responses to the demand for inspection.

ii. Sanctions

County alleges that Villegas’s failure to provide responses to its discovery request constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Motion to Compel Responses Demand Produce, p. 6: 2-4.) This argument is well-taken. Despite multiple extensions of the deadline in which to respond, Plaintiff Villegas has not provided responses to the form interrogatories. Failing to respond to discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010(d).)

County requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,475.00 to be assessed against Villegas. County supports its request with the declaration of counsel, Allen L. Thomas. (Thomas Decl.) Thomas declares that his hourly rate is $450. (Thomas Decl. p. 10: 12-17.) Thomas declares that he has spent 1.5 hours preparing the motion and anticipates 1 hour to review the opposition and 3 hours to appear at the hearing. The Court finds the hourly rate requested reasonable. The Court declines to grant sanctions for time not spent reviewing the opposition, as the motion is unopposed. The Court also declines to grant 3 hours of time to attend the hearing and finds 1 hour is a more appropriate amount of time. In total, the Court awards sanctions for 2.5 hours of attorney time, 2.5 x $450/hr= $1,125.00.

          In sum, the Court awards County sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          The motion by Defendant County of Los Angeles for an order compelling responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. The motion by Defendant County of Los Angeles for an order compelling sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,125.00.

          Motion by Defendant County of Los Angeles for an order compelling responses to demands for inspection is GRANTED. Motion by Defendant County of Los Angeles for an order compelling sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,125.00.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the ordered sanctions within thirty (30) days of today’s date.

The County of Los Angeles is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.  

         

 

 

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT