Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STLC03655, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC03655, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03655 Hearing Date: January 3, 2024 Dept: 26

Long v. Burbank Empire Center, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Michael Long’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, is GRANTED. DEFENDANT BURBANK EMPIRE CENTER, LLC IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $250.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Long (“Plaintiff”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Burbank Empire Center, LLC (“Defendant”). (Motion, Mehrban Decl., Exh. A.) Despite a meet and confer effort extending the deadline to serve verified responses without objections, Defendant has not served responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Id. at ¶¶4-5 and Exh. B.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, on November 21, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition on December 18, 2023.

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 at any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290.) Based on Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling them to serve verified responses to the discovery requests without objections. Defendant offers no authority that service of responses after the Motion was filed is not grounds to deny the Motion. (Opp., p. 2:18-28.) Nor is the opposition supported by any evidence of the responses that purport to make the Motion moot. (Id. at Jarrel Decl., ¶8.)

Defendant’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. The Court disagrees that sanctions should not be awarded. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel did not adequately meet and confer, yet no meet and confer is required by the statute. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter requesting initial responses by November 2, 2023. (Motion, Mehrban Decl., Exh. B.) Therefore, sanctions are awarded against Defendant and counsel of record in the amount of $250.00 based on half-an-hour of attorney time billed at $500.00 per hour. (Motion, Mehrban Decl., ¶6.)

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.