Judge Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case Number: 23AHCV00976, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00976, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00976 Hearing Date: May 8, 2024 Dept: P

1. [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

2. [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

3. [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

1.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a negligence suit arising from an alleged robbery of Plaintiff Gerlach’s Liquor. Plaintiff alleges that it hired Baskin & Baskin to provide security at the store and that on May 10, 2020, Baskin allegedly failed to do so and thieves made off with the store’s wares.

Baskin filed this motion to compel on March 7, 2024. It is unopposed. (4/25/24 Non-Opposition.)

Before the Court is Baskin’s motion for an order compelling response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Because the evidence shows Plaintiff failed to respond, the motion is granted.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (CCP § 2031.010.) “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480(a).)

“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.) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2025.480(j).)

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant Baskin & Baskin served Gerlach’s with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on September 21, 2023 via email. Responses were due October 23, 2023. Plaintiff did not respond. On December 5, 2023, Counsel for Defendant, Scott Cox, reached out via email to Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the lack of response. (Cox Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant’s counsel that same day. (Cox Decl. ¶ 3.) On February 8, 2024, Defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel to advise that he would be filing motions to compel and followed up by email. (Cox Decl. Exh. C.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, no responsive documents have been received. (Cox Decl. ¶ 4.)

The motion to compel responses to Requests for Production, Set One is granted.

B. Sanctions

Defendant requests $525.00 in monetary sanctions. Defendant’s request is accompanied by the declaration of its Counsel, Scott Cox. (Cox Decl.) Cox declares that he spent 1.5 hours preparing to compel responses and expects to spend 1 additional hour responding to Defendant’s opposition and preparing for the hearing. (Cox Decl. ¶ 6.) His hourly rate is $210.00 (Id.) However, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to this motion. Therefore, Defendant need not respond to an opposition. The Court finds that $315.00 is the reasonable and appropriate sanction to impose.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for an order compelling response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is granted.

Plaintiff Gerlach’s is further ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $315.00 to Defendant Baskin & Baskin Inc.

Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

Dated: May 6, 2024

JARED D. MOSES

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
2.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a negligence suit arising from an alleged robbery of Plaintiff Gerlach’s Liquor. Plaintiff alleges that it hired Baskin & Baskin to provide security at the store and that on May 10, 2020, Baskin failed to do so, and thieves made off with the store’s wares.

Baskin filed this motion to compel on March 7, 2024. It is unopposed. (4/25/24 Non-Opposition.)

Before the Court is Defendant Baskin & Baskin Inc.’s motion for an order compelling response to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Because the evidence shows Plaintiff failed to respond, the motion is granted.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Code Civ. Proc. Section 2030.290 provides that when a party to whom interrogatories has been propounded fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the interrogatories; it further provides that the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatory. Subdivision (c) provides for monetary sanctions in connection with such motion. (CCP § 2030.290.)

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant Baskin & Baskin served Gerlach’s with Form Interrogatories, Set One on September 21, 2023, via email. Responses were due October 23, 2023. Plaintiff did not respond. On December 5, 2023, Counsel for Defendant, Scott Cox, reached out via email to Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the lack of response. (Cox Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant’s counsel that same day. (Cox Decl. ¶ 3.) On February 8, 2024, Defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel to advise that he would be filing motions to compel and followed by email. (Cox Decl. Exh. C.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, no responsive documents have been received. (Cox Decl. ¶ 4.)

The motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is granted.

B. Sanctions

Defendant requests $525.00 in monetary sanctions. Defendant’s request is accompanied by the declaration of its Counsel, Scott Cox. (Cox Decl.) Cox declares that he spent 1.5 hours preparing to compel responses and expects to spend 1 additional hour responding to Defendant’s opposition and preparing for the hearing. (Cox Decl. ¶ 6.) His hourly rate is $210. (Id.) However, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to this motion. Therefore, Defendant need not respond to an opposition. The Court finds that $315.00 is the reasonable and appropriate sanction to impose.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Baskin & Baskin Inc.’s motion for an order compelling response to Form Interrogatories, Set One is granted.

Plaintiff Gerlach’s is further ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $315.00 to Defendant.

Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

Dated: 5/6/24

JARED D. MOSES

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

3.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a negligence suit arising from an alleged robbery of Plaintiff Gerlach’s Liquor. Plaintiff alleges that it hired Baskin & Baskin to provide security at the store and that on May 10, 2020, Baskin failed to do so and thieves made off with the store’s wares.

Baskin filed this motion to compel on March 7, 2024. It is unopposed. (4/25/24 Non-Opposition.)

Before the Court is Defendant Baskin & Baskin Inc.’s motion for an order compelling response to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Because the evidence shows Plaintiff failed to respond, the motion is granted.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant Baskin & Baskin served Gerlach’s with Special Interrogatories, Set One on September 21, 2023, via email. Responses were due October 23, 2023. Plaintiff did not respond. On December 5, 2023, Counsel for Defendant, Scott Cox, reached out via email to Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the lack of response. (Cox Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant’s counsel that same day. (Cox Decl. ¶ 3.) On February 8, 2024, Defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel to advise that he would be filing motions to compel and followed up by email. (Cox Decl. Exh. C.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, no responsive documents have been received. (Cox Decl. ¶ 4.)

The motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is granted.

B. Sanctions

Defendant requests $630.00 in monetary sanctions. Defendant’s request is accompanied by the declaration of its Counsel, Scott Cox. (Cox Decl.) Cox declares that he spent 1.5 hours preparing to compel responses and expects to spend 1 additional hour responding to Defendant’s opposition and 1 hour appearing at the hearing. (Cox Decl. ¶ 6.) His hourly rate is $210. (Id.) However, Plaintiff filed a non-opposition to this motion. Therefore, Defendant need not respond to the opposition. The Court finds that $525.00 is the reasonable and appropriate sanction to impose.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Baskin & Baskin Inc.’s motion for an order compelling response to Special Interrogatories, Set One is granted.

Plaintiff Gerlach’s is further ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $525.00 to Defendant.

Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

Dated: 5/6/24

JARED D. MOSES

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT