Judge: Mark V. Mooney, Case: 18STCV05865, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV05865    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 68

18STCV05865           MARTIN LARA, et al. vs PEDRO LOPEZ, et al

TENTATIVE RULING:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY ARE MOOT.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.

Plaintiff served two defendants with a number of sets of discovery.  Both Defendants failed to timely respond.  Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendants to provide responses to the discovery.  In addition, Plaintiff requests sanctions against both in the amount of $2,000 plus $240 for filing fees against each of the two Defendants for their failure to comply with their discovery obligation.

The discovery was served on June 28, 2022.  Responses were due in early August 2022.  No timely response were served.  No request for an extension was sought.  Moving party sent Defendants’ counsel an email inquiring about the discovery responses.  There was no reply.  These motions were then filed in mid-August.  The work was necessitated by the failure of Defendants to address this outstanding discovery.

A review of the Oppositions and Replies reveal that the Motions are now moot, as Defendants provided responses to the discovery at issue on September 23, 2022.  (Opps. pp. 2-3; Replies pp. 1-2.)  Accordingly, the only remaining issue before the Court is whether sanctions are warranted against Defendant.

Defendants contends that sanctions are not appropriate because Plaintiff failed to serve a declaration attesting to the need for further discovery.  In addition, Defendants contend that sanctions are not warranted as the Motions to not comply with California law, as Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the discovery which sought to be compelled.  (See Cal. Rules Ct. 3.1345(d).)

Plaintiff was not required to include a declaration for additional for discovery for each discovery tool propounded.  A declaration for additional discovery is only required for special interrogatories and requests for admission, when more than 35 special interrogatories or requests are propounded by an individual party on another party.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.050, 2033.050.)  Accordingly, a declaration for further discovery would not be required for form interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

There may have been some confusion regarding what specific discovery was at issue as Plaintiff failed to attach the discovery at issue.  (However, since the Court need not evaluate the specific discovery at issue given the total lack of any responses, the failure to attach the discovery did not prejudice anyone.)  Here, Plaintiff moves to compel responses to the discovery, which Plaintiff represents are all sets one.  However, all of Defendants’ oppositions relate to “Set[s] No[s]. 2” for each discovery tool at issue.  Based on the papers and supporting evidence, it is unclear which discovery set is at issue.  However, the failure of the Defendants to timely respond to the discovery and to ignore the Plaintiff’s counsel’s inquiry resulted in the need to file these motions.

Because there was a need to file these numerous motions, sanctions are in order.  The Court finds that 4 hours of time at the rate of $375 per hour is a reasonable fee for each of the set of motions against the two Defendants.  In addition Plaintiff is entitled to recover the filing fees associated with the motions.  Fees in the total amount of $1,500 plus the filing fees of $240 for a total of $1,740 is an appropriate sanction against each Defendant and their counsel.  (A total of $3,480 is awarded.)

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant Ricardo Lopez and his counsel of record, Jeffrey B. Endler in the amount of $1,740, jointly and severally.

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant Esteban Lopez and his counsel of record, Jeffrey B. Endler in the amount of $1,740, jointly and severally.

Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days of service of notice of this ruling.