Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV04534, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04534    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 9, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendants John K. Paulson, Rachel E. Boden, and Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar, LLP

Responding Party: None

T/R:   DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $405 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. PAYMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Mahrou Hanassab filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants John K. Paulson, Rachel E. Boden, and Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar LLP, asserting causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges Defendants represented Plaintiff in a personal injury action as a defendant. The jury awarded damages against Plaintiff in an amount that exceeded the limit of Plaintiff’s insurance policy. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were negligent in defending the personal injury action.

ANALYSIS

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . .  [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .  The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demandIf a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission (“RFAs”), the party waives any objection to the requests.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).)  Moreover, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction….”  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) 

1. Merits

Defendants move to compel responses to RPDs, set two, from Plaintiff Mahrou Hanassab. Defendants served the discovery by email and mail on August 16, 2022. After being afforded multiple extensions, Plaintiff’s responses were due on October 14, 2022. As of the filing of the motion, Defendants have not received any responses. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion to show that responses have been served. The motion is GRANTED.

1. Sanctions

            Defendants seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,141.00. Sanctions are warranted under C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) because Plaintiff’s failure to respond amounts to a misuse of the discovery process. (C.C.P. § 2023.010(d).) Counsel declared she spent 2 hours preparing the motion and anticipates spending .7 hours reviewing the opposition, 1 hour preparing a reply brief, and 1 hour preparing for and attending hearing, at a rate of $230 per hour. (See Chambers Decl. ¶ 12.) Since this was a simple issue and an unopposed motion, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $405 (1.5 hours at a rate of $230 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee).