Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC08904 2022-08-02 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.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Defendant Jordan Knutzen’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF JAMES MCGEE IS ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $235.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Jordan Knutzen’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 18, 2022 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY OCTOBER 1, 2022, DEFENDANT JORDAN KNUTZEN IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION WITH THE MISSING EXHIBITS ATTACHED. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

On February 1, 2022, Defendant Jordan Knutzen (“Defendant Knutzen”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff James McGee (“Plaintiff”). (Motion, Malloy Decl., Exh. A.) After Plaintiff failed to serve responses, Defendant Knutzen sought to meet and confer and extended the deadline to respond. (Id. at Exh. B.) Following Plaintiff’s continued failure to respond, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions on June 23, 2022. (Id. at ¶4.) 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 failure to respond to the propounded discovery, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. Plaintiff 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 against Plaintiff. However, the amount sought is excessive. Under a lodestar calculation, the request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff in the amount of $235.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $175.00 an hour and $60.00 in costs. (Motion, Malloy Decl., ¶5.)

Regarding the concurrently filed Motion to Compel Responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, however, Defendant fails to attach a copy of the discovery served or the proof of service. (Motion, Malloy Decl.) The Motion to Compel Responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One cannot be granted without evidence that the discovery was served.