Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22NWLC22743, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22NWLC22743, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWLC22743 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: 26

Foster v. Murray, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Defendant Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special 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 MOOT. CROSS-COMPLAINANT KC BRANAGHANS, INC. DBA KC BRANAGHANS DBA KC BRANAGHAN’S IRISH PUB & RESTAURANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,572.75 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Cross-Defendant American Textile Maintenance Company’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special 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 MOOT. CROSS-COMPLAINANT KC BRANAGHANS, INC. DBA KC BRANAGHANS DBA KC BRANAGHAN’S IRISH PUB & RESTAURANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,572.75 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Cross-Defendants Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“CAB, Inc.”) and American Textile Maintenance Company (“ATMC”) served Cross-Complainant KC Branaghans, Inc. dba KC Branaghans dba KC Branaghan’s Irish Pub & Restaurant (“Cross-Complainant”) with Special Interrogatories, Sets One, and Request for Production of Documents, Sets One, on July 26, 2023. (Motions, Brown Decl., Exh. 1.) Following a meet and confer effort, the Cross-Complainant still did not serve responses. (Id. at Exh. 2.) Cross-Defendants filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions; (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (4) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions, on September 13, 2023. Cross-Complainant filed an opposition declaration on October 30, 2023 and Cross-Defendants replied on November 1, 2023.

Although Cross-Complainant contends it served timely objections to the Special Interrogatories, Sets One, it did not timely respond to Cross-Defendants’ meet and confer letter sent on September 8, 2023 and asking for the responses by September 11, 2023. (Motions, Brown Decl., Exh. 1.) Instead, Cross-Complainant waited until September 13, 2023 to respond to the meet and confer letter. Cross-Complainant also contends that it had a two-week extension of the time to provide responses to the Request for Production, Sets One, but attaches no copy of this agreement. (Opp., Loe Decl., ¶4.) Responses to all the discovery were served on October 26, 2023. (Id. at Exh. B.) Cross-Defendants acknowledge receipt of the responses. (Reply, Brown Decl., ¶7.) Therefore, the Court finds that the discovery motions are moot.

Cross-Defendants maintain that they never received Cross-Complainant’s responses served on August 25, 2023 and request monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,572.75 per motion based on an hourly rate of $500.00 and $72.75 in costs. (Motions, Brown Decl. ¶5.) Cross-Complainant does not address the requests for monetary sanctions in its opposition. Nor does it deny that it served responses after the deadlines. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions. As each motion to compel is substantially similar, the Court finds that each Cross-Defendant is entitled to total sanctions of $1,572.75.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.