Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV28500, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28500    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 20, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(8) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gloria I. Morales, Yvan Flores, Gloria E. Morales, Jose Morales and Karin Cabreras

 Responding Party: None

T/R:    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL ARE GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $8,587.50 PER DEFENDANT.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.  

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No oppositions have been received.

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to set one of SIs, FIs, RPDs and RFAs from Defendants Tomas Delgado and Alegria Delgado. Plaintiffs served the subject discovery on Defendants on August 2, 2022. Defendants served responses on September 27, 2022. The responses consisted of only objections. Defendants served supplemental responses to SIs and RPDs on November 21, 2022. Plaintiffs assert these responses are incomplete and evasive and contain baseless objections. The parties attended an IDC on November 22, 2022. Plaintiffs filed these motions on December 9, 2022. Defendants have not filed oppositions to the motions to show the objections have merit or the responses are code-complaint. Further responses are necessary.

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to discovery are GRANTED.

Plaintiffs request various amounts in sanctions for the preparation of the motions ranging from $13,0065.00 to $1,365.00. Counsel charges $450.00 per hour and the requests contain prospective requests for attorney time reviewing an opposition, drafting a reply and attending the hearing. The Court will allow recovery of the time spent drafting each motion (23.9 + 2 + 4.2 + 0.7 + 2.5 + 0.4 + 2.0 + 0.4 = 36.1), one hour total to attend the hearings on the motions and the filing fees. This equals $16,695.00 in attorney fees and $480 in fees, for a total of $17,175.00. The Court will award one half of the sanctions ($8,587.50) against each defendant and defendants’ counsel.