Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STLC11348, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STLC11348 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023 Dept: 26
Lara v. Mejia, et al.
MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2023.030)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Eveleen Lara’s (1) Motion
to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions;
and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set
One, and Request for Sanctions, are GRANTED.
DEFENDANT DELMYS YESENIA FLORES MEJIA IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHOUT
OBJECTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF
RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED
TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $210.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF
THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff Eveleen Lara (“Plaintiff”)
served Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents,
Set One, on Defendant Delmys Yesenia Flores Mejia (“Defendant”). (Motion, Ly Decl., Exh. A.) Despite a meet and
confer effort extending the deadline to serve verified responses without
objections, Defendant has not done so. (Id. at Exh. B.) Plaintiff filed
the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One,
and Request for Sanctions; and (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for
Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, on May 25, 2023. Defendant
filed oppositions to the motions on June 7, 2023.
Discussion
There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort
before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2031.300.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding
party fails to provide the responses.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Based on Defendant’s failure to timely respond
to the propounded discovery, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling
service of verified responses to the discovery requests without objections. Defendant’s
oppositions suggest that proper notice of the motions was not provided to
defense counsel, but the proof of service shows service on Defendant’s
attorney, Reza Lajevardi, Esq. Martinez, Dietrich & Zarcone. (Motions,
Proof of Service, p. 2.) Apparently, another defense firm—Tharpe & Howell,
LLP—has associated in as counsel for Defendant. (See Opps., Yegoyan Decl., ¶2.)
The oppositions speak as though Tharpe & Howell, LLP is Defendant’s current
counsel and that Martinez, Dietrich & Zarcone is Defendant’s prior counsel,
but there has been no substitution of attorney in this action. (See id.
at p. 3:7-23.) Nor do the oppositions cite to any authority to show that the
motions had to be served on all of Defendant’s attorneys. Therefore, service of
the motions was proper.
Defendant’s failure to timely respond constitutes a misuse
of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions
are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030
and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive. Under
a lodestar calculation, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $420.00 based on
two hours of attorney time billed at $150.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing
fee. (Motions, Ly Decl.,
¶7.)
Conclusion
Plaintiff Eveleen Lara’s (1) Motion
to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions;
and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set
One, and Request for Sanctions, are GRANTED.
DEFENDANT DELMYS YESENIA FLORES MEJIA IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHOUT
OBJECTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF
RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED
TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $210.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF
THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.