Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC04672 2023-05-08 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.

Michael Sanchez and Maria Sanchez vs. Eric Russell, et al

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant's Motions to Compel Responses to the Form Interrogatories and to Compel Responses to Discovery for the Specially Prepared Interrogatories are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,144.00 TO DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: This suit arises from an automobile collision in which Michael and Maria Sanchez (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Eric Russel and Karen Jones-Russell (“Defendants”) were negligent and collided with their vehicle. (Complaint, ¶ GN-1.) Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on June 23, 2021. Form Interrogatories and Specially Prepared Interrogatories were served by Defendant on Plaintiff on November 21, 2022. (Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery, hereinafter, the “Motion”, 1:20-21). After two extensions and receiving no responses, Defendant then filed the instant Motion on April 3, 2023. To date, no opposition papers have been received by the Court.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Moving party has filed two separate motions to compel, both requesting that responses to form interrogatories and specially prepared interrogatories be compelled and that sanctions be awarded in the amount of $572.00 for each motion.

On November 21, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff Michael Sanchez Form Interrogatories (set one). Responses from Plaintiff Michael Sanchez were due on December 21, 2022; however, no responses were received from Plaintiff Michael Sanchez. On January 5, 2023, a meet and confer letter was sent to Plaintiff Michael Sanchez in an effort to obtain responses. An extension was granted until February 6, 2023 for the responses to be served. When no responses were received a second meet and confer letter was sent to Plaintiff Michael Sanchez. Another extension, until March 13, 2023, was granted. Responses, to date, have not been received by Defendant. (See generally, the Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Here, per Leach, Defendant has shown that Form Interrogatories and the Specially Prepared Interrogatories have been properly served on the opposing party, and after two extensions, the opposing party has failed to comply. (Motion, 1:23-24, and 2:3-5.) Moreover, the Court has not received any opposition papers to this Motion. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” (CRC 8.54(c)).

Accordingly, the Court will grant both Motions and their accompanying requests for sanctions. The Declaration of Counsel in Support of the Motion (hereinafter, “Counsel Dec.”) states that Defendant’s counsel’s rate is $133.00 per hour (Counsel Dec., ¶ 10.) Additionally, Defendant’s counsel states that they spent a total of four (4) hours in preparing and appearing for the instant Motion, plus a $40.00 filing fee (Ibid). Therefore, the total amount requested is $572.00, for each motion, equaling $1,144.00.

Defendant's Motions to Compel Responses to the Form Interrogatories and to Compel Responses to Discovery for the Specially Prepared Interrogatories are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1044.00 TO DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.