Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 20STLC02682, Date: 2024-01-09 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.

Jones v. Kuriel, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION;

Defendants Maya Kuriel, Yaacov Kuriel, and Jee Kuriel’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, are GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TOBY LEE JONES IS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, NOS. 102.8, 102.9, 102.10, 102.11, 107.1, and 120.1 AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, NO. 3, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF TOBY LEE JONES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $948.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff Toby Lee Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Maya Kuriel, Yaacov Kuriel, and Jee Kuriel (“Defendants”) on March 18, 2020. The case was not at issue until Defendants filed an answer on May 10, 2023. On February 20, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel initial responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Minute Order, 02/20/24.)

On February 21, 2024, Defendants filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. No oppositions have been filed to date.

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); § 2031.310, subd. (d).) Plaintiff’s discovery responses were served electronically on January 8, 2024. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶5.) The Motions were timely filed and served on February 21, 2024.

Also, the Motions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) The supporting declarations demonstrate an effort by defense counsel to obtain further responses from Plaintiff after service of the original responses. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶¶6-7 and Exh. A.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) The Motions are accompanied by separate statements. (Separate Statements, filed 02/21/24.)

Defendants move to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 102.8, 102.9, 102.10, 102.11, 107.1, and 120.1 because Defendant’s responses contained meritless objections and were non-responsive. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 states in relevant part:

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s responses to Nos. 102.8, 102.9, 102.10, 102.11, 107.1 were simply objections despite being untimely such that all objections had been waived. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) They also stated that the interrogatories were “not applicable”, which does not conform to the mode of responses provided for by statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, 2030.220.) Finally, the response to No. 107.1 did not include objections but improperly stated that the information sought would be provided later. A response that indicates the information will be provided later is not permitted under the Discovery Code. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 102.8, 102.9, 102.10, 102.11, 107.1.

A corresponding statute exists with respect to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3).) Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s further response to No. 3, which asks for all writings that support Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff responded with a non-responsive statement that non-privileged documents would be produced and that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry were made to comply with the request. (See Separate Statement, filed 02/21/24, No. 3.) Yet the documents were not produced by the due date, as required by statute, nor did Plaintiff respond to the meet and confer effort. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) Therefore, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling a further response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 3.

Sanctions are appropriate and have been properly noticed. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h), 2023.010.) Defendants request sanctions in the amount of $612.00 per motion based on four hours of attorney time billed at an hourly rate of $138.00, plus $60.00 in costs. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶8.) The Court finds this amount should be reduced based on the relative simplicity of this discovery dispute which involves boilerplate objections and is unopposed. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $474.00 per motion based on three hours of attorney time and the filing fee.