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

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

DAVID A. ORTIZ, et al.;

 

                             Plaintiffs,

 

                              vs.

 

RACHEL BRINCK, et al.,

 

                              Defendants.

 

 

 

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

Case No.:  18STCV01407

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed:  10/19/18

First Amended Compl. Filed: 05/24/19

Second Amended Compl. Filed: 01/28/20

Trial Date:  04/08/24

 

 

 

 

 

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