Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00493, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCV00493    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

LINDA WAI LING CHAN, an individual,                 

 

                                        Plaintiff,

                                  vs.

 

ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive

 

 

                                         Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV00926

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; BUT ASSESSING SANCTIONS

 

Date:   February 5, 2024

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

This action concerns personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Linda Wai Li Chan (Chan) alleges that Defendant Angel Rodriguez (Rodriguez) caused her personal injuries.

Before the Court is a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two filed by Chan. Rodriguez has filed responses, making the motion to compel moot. The motion compelling a response to the form interrogatories is therefore denied.  However, sanctions are appropriate.   

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).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)   

“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

          i. Motion

Chan presents evidence that on September 14, 2023, she served Rodriguez by electronic service with Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. Two (2). Responses were due October 14, 2023.  Rodriguez asserts he served his responses on Chan on January 2, 2024. (Supplemental Lajevardi Decl. ¶ 1.)

Based on the above evidence, Chan has established that Rodriguez was served with Form Interrogatories, Set Two. However, Rodriguez has provided responses. Pursuant to CCP section 2030.290(b), the Court denies the motion to compel responses to the interrogatories as moot.

ii. Sanctions

Chan alleges that Rodriguez’s failure to provide responses to her discovery request constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Motion, p. 6: 15-25.) This argument is well-taken, as Rodriguez does not provide adequate justification as to why he did not respond to the discovery requests sooner. (See CCP § 2023.010(c).) His attorney, M. Reza Lajevardi, declares that only “I have been handling a high caseload of over eighty cases due to high turnover and management changes at my law firm.” (Lajevardi Decl. ¶ 2.)

          Given the circumstances, the Court imposes sanctions on Defendant Rodriguez. Plaintiff Chan requests sanctions in the amount of $1,560.00. In support, Chan attaches the declaration of her attorney, Donald T. Dunham. (Dunham Declaration.) Dunham declares that he spent 2.5 hours preparing this motion and anticipates a further 2.5 hours responding to opposition and attending the hearing. (Dunham Decl. ¶ 7.) He spent $60.00 on the filing fee for this motion. His hourly rate is $300. (Id.) The court finds the hourly rate and hours expended are reasonable.

         

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          The motion by Plaintiff Chan for an order compelling response to interrogatories is denied as moot.

          Defendant Angel Rodriguez to pay monetary sanctions of $1,560.00 to Plaintiff Chan within 300 days of notice of this order.

Chan is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.  

 

 

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT