Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 18STCV01407, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 18STCV01407 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: March
8, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Defendant
Curtis Lepore
Responding Party: Plaintiff
Yuko Ortiz
(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz’s Responses to Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One)
(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three)
(3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz’s Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One)
(4) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Three)
The court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
The court GRANTS
defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s
responses to Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One). The
court orders plaintiff Yuko Ortiz to serve responses, without objections, to
Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One), within 20 days of
the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s
responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three). The court orders plaintiff
Yuko Ortiz to serve responses, without objections, to Request for Production of
Documents (Set Three), within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s
responses to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders plaintiff
Yuko Ortiz to serve responses, without objections, to Supplemental
Interrogatories (Set One), within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s
responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Three). The court orders plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz to serve responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set
Three), within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore’s requests for monetary sanctions for
the four discovery motions against plaintiff Yuko Ortiz in the reduced total amount
of $1,380 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court orders plaintiff Yuko Ortiz
to pay $1,380 to defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore, through his counsel
of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
Background
On
October 19, 2018, plaintiffs David A. Ortiz and Yuko Ortiz filed this action
and, on January 28, 2020, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC)
against Rachel Brinck, Curtis Lepore, Morley Construction Company, Inc.,
Benchmark Contractors, Inc., 62 Hundred Hollywood South, LP, DLJ Real Estate
Capital Partners, LLC, Clarett West Development, LLC. The SAC alleges the
following causes of action: (1) General Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; (3)
Negligent Infliction of Emotion Distress; (4) Loss of Consortium; (5) Permissive
Use Statute; (6) Negligent Entrustment; (7) Public Entity Negligence: Dangerous
Condition on Public Property; (8) General Negligence—Commercial Entity Owner
Developers & Contractors; (9) Peculiar Risk Doctrine; (10) Nondelegable
Duty Doctrine; and (11) Premise Liability.
Plaintiffs
alleged the following. On October 29, 2017, plaintiff David Ortiz was walking
on the crosswalk between Argyle Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard in the City of
Los Angeles. (SAC at pg. 10:10-13.) Defendant Rachel Brinck was driving a car
entrusted to her by defendant Curtis Lepore when she ran a red light and failed
to yield the right of way to Ortiz (Id. at pp. 7:4-7, 9:20-25, 10:1-2.) Brinck
struck and almost killed Ortiz. (Id. at pg. 7:5-6.) Brinck was driving
too fast and recklessly. (Id. at pg. 9:20.) Defendants City of Los Angeles,
Morley Construction Company, Bencmark Contractors, Inc., 62 Hundred Hollywood
South, LP, DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners, LLC, and Clarett West Development
LLC were negligent by erecting or allowing a tall construction barrier to
remain at the crosswalk, which created a blind spot for pedestrians entering
the crosswalk. (Id. at pg. 7:7-12.)
On
August 10, 2023, defendant/cross-defendant Curtis Lepore (hereinafter “Defendant”)
filed (1) a motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s
responses to Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents (Set One);
(2) a motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Request for
Production of Documents (Set Three); (3) a motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Supplemental
Interrogatories (Set One); and (4) a motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Form Interrogatories
(Set Three).
On
August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition. Defendant filed replies
on August 22, 2023.
//
//
Legal Standard
If a party to whom interrogatories were
directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for
an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2030.290(b)-(c);
see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc.
v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) CCP §
2030.290 contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have
been served. All that needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of
interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to
respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111
Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
If a party to whom requests for production
of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding
party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.
(CCP § 2031.300(b)-(c).) CCP § 2031.300 contains no time limit for a motion to
compel where no responses have been served. The propounding party need not
demonstrate good cause or satisfy a meet-and-confer requirement – all that
needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of requests for production
of documents was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to
respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-04.)
Discussion
Merits of the Motions
Defendant moves
to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to (1) Supplemental Demand for
Production of Documents (Set One); (2) Requests for Production of Documents
(Set Three); (3) Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One); and (4) Form
Interrogatories (Set Three). Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted Requests for
Admission (Set One) to Bolsabuy, Inc.
As to the
interrogatories and requests for production, Defendant establishes the
following: Defendant served these written discovery requests on June 7, 2023
and June 8, 2023, respectively. (Reeves Decls. re ROGS & RFPs at ¶ 2, Exhs.
A.) The original deadline for Plaintiffs’ responses were July 10, 2023 and July
11, 2023, which the court extended to July 19, 2023. (Ibid). Plaintiff
Yuko Ortiz failed to serve her responses by July 19, 2023 and has not served
any responses to date. (Id. at ¶¶ 2-4.)
The court finds
these facts are sufficient to show Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz’s responses to the interrogatories and request for production at issue
should be granted. Defendant shows he properly served on plaintiff Yuko Ortiz the
interrogatories and requests for production at issue. Plaintiff Yuko Ortiz has
failed to serve any responses despite receiving an extension.
In opposition, plaintiff
Yuko Ortiz fails to show that she provided any written discovery responses. Instead,
she raises concerns regarding her privacy rights and claims that the discovery
requests are harassing. Such arguments do not address the merits of Defendant’s
motions. Privacy right or harassment issues must be raised in a written objection
or motion for protective order, which plaintiff Yuko Ortiz has failed to do.
Thus, Defendant is entitled to relief pursuant to the instant discovery
motions.
Accordingly, the
court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Supplemental
Demand for Production of Documents (Set One). The court orders plaintiff Yuko
Ortiz to serve responses, without objections, to Supplemental Demand for
Production of Documents (Set One), within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Request for Production
of Documents (Set Three). The court orders plaintiff Yuko Ortiz to serve
responses, without objections, to Request for Production of Documents (Set
Three), within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Supplemental
Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders plaintiff Yuko Ortiz to serve
responses, without objections, to Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Yuko Ortiz’s responses to Form
Interrogatories (Set Three). The court orders plaintiff Yuko Ortiz to serve
responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set Three), within 20
days of the date of this ruling.
Requests for Monetary Sanctions
Defendant
requests per motion $915 in attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions
against plaintiff Yuko Ortiz. Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is $285. (Reeves
Decls. re: ROGs, RFPs at ¶ 5.) Defendant seeks to recover three hours and $60
filing fee for each motion to compel. (Id.) For each motion, Defendant
seeks 1.5 hour for preparing the motion, one hour for reviewing the opposition
and preparing a reply, and .05 hours for attending the hearing. (Id.
The court finds Plaintiff’s
counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, but the time requested should be reduced.
A review of these motions reveal that they are substantially the same motion
that concern uncomplicated discovery issues. As a result, the amounts that
Defendant seeks are not reasonable. Rather,
the court finds the one hour for preparing each motion and the $60 filing fee per
motion are reasonable. Thus, Defendant’s total reduced recoverable amount in
attorney’s fees and costs against plaintiff Yuko Ortiz is $1,380 ([(1 hour + $285/hour)
+ $60 filing fee] x 4 motions).
Accordingly, the
court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for the four motions against plaintiff
Yuko Ortiz in the total reduced amount of $1,380 in attorney’s fees and costs.
The court orders plaintiff David Ortiz to pay $1,380 to Defendant, through his
counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
March 8, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court