Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00206, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00206    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     History of Discovery Dispute

Plaintiff propounded discovery, including FROGs, SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs on each of the three defendants on 10/13/22.  Defendants requested and received an extension of time to respond through 11/30/22.  On 11/30/22, Defense Counsel, Kelly Champ, emailed to state that he would send responses the following week.  On 12/05/22, Plaintiff filed the twelve discovery motions at issue today. 

2.     Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff contends Defendants failed to respond to the subject discovery, and seeks an order compelling them to do so, without objections, and to pay sanctions. 

On 1/18/23, Defendants filed opposition to the motions.  The opposition contends responses, in substantial compliance with the Code, have been served, and is accompanied by a declaration from Champ detailing very serious personal problems that have arisen recently in his life; he declares that the failure to timely respond was solely as a result of those problems, and asks that sanctions not be imposed or, in the alternative, be imposed solely against him and not against his clients.

On 1/24/23, Plaintiff filed replies to the oppositions.  Plaintiff contends the responses served are not compliant with the Code, and also contends Defendants have offered no explanation for why some other attorney in the firm, which has eleven offices in the country and thirty attorneys in the Orange County branch, failed to step in and respond to the subject discovery.  Plaintiff notes that the lead attorney on the case is not Champ, but instead Scott Monroe. 

3.     Responses

Plaintiff contends the belated responses are not code-compliant.  The Court asks Counsel to meet and confer in good faith concerning the sufficiency of the responses.  The Court is hopeful the parties can resolve all issues without the need for further law and motion practice.

The Court finds Defendants served objection-free responses, and therefore the motions are substantively moot.  Any issues relating to the sufficiency of the responses must be handled by way of meet and confer efforts and, if necessary, motions to compel further responses. 

4.     Sanctions

The main issue remaining in connection with the motions is whether or not to impose sanctions and, if so, against whom to impose sanctions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s notices of motion fail to comply with CCP §2023.040, which requires the notice of motion to identify every person, party, and attorney against whom sanctions are sought.  Plaintiff’s notices of motion merely indicate Plaintiff seeks sanctions, but fails to indicate against whom they are sought.  All requests for sanctions are therefore denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must call the court at 562-256-2227 indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive a phone call indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.