Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21SMCV01405, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01405    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to compel is GRANTED.  The request for fees is GRANTED in the amount of $3505 against plaintiff only and is payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff admits that the responses were not served until after the motion was filed.  Plaintiff contends that the motion is moot, however, in light of the late service.  The court disagrees.  Plaintiff is to serve verified code-compliant responses without objection other than privilege within 5 court days of today.  If the current responses are adequate, plaintiff may stand on them.  But if not, the failure to serve compliant responses will constitute a violation of this order and if there is a motion to compel further, sanctions beyond monetary sanctions are on the table.

That leaves sanctions.  Plaintiff asserts that sanctions are not required in the amount requested, and plaintiff offered defendant an amount to moot out the question.  Defendant, however, found the amount inadequate and rejected it.

The court has reviewed the papers.  The court is concerned that the amount of time spent on a motion to compel (not a motion to compel further) seems high.  These are among the easiest of motions to draft.  That said, the revised amount in the reply seems appropriate to the court.  The hourly rates are reasonable as are the revised number of hours.  While the court is aware of the claim by plaintiff that some of this might have been avoidable, the court cannot help but, in light of this case’s history, be concerned that the price of a unilateral continuance should not be discounted by way of judicial second-guessing.