Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 19STLC43553 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Allen Harris’ successor-in-interest, Allen Dailes IV’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF’S SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, ALLEN DAILES IV, IS ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF’S SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, ALLEN DAILES IV AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $180.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

On July 18, 2022, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff Allen Harris’ successor-in-interest, Allen Dailes IV (“Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest”). (Motion, Liu Decl., Exh. A.) After Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest failed to serve responses, Defendant sought to meet and confer and extended the deadline to respond. (Id. at Exh. B.) Following Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest’s continued failure to respond, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. (Id. at ¶d.) No opposition has been filed to date.

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Based on Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest’s failure to respond to the propounded discovery, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest to serve verified responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections.

Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest’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, the request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff’s Successor-in-Interest in the amount of $180.00, based on one hour of attorney time billed at $180.00 an hour. (Motion, Liu Decl., ¶10.)