Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 20STCV04820, Date: 2024-03-05 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: 20STCV04820    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

CRYSTAL GONZALEZ;

 

                             Plaintiffs,

 

                              vs.

 

RONALD CHAO MEDICAL

CORPORATION, et al.;

 

                              Defendants.

 

 

20STCV04820

 

Hearing date:              March 5, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Crystal Gonzalez

Responding Party:      Defendants Sculptor Body Molding, Inc.

 

Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant Sculptor Body Molding, Inc. to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three) and Monetary Sanctions

 

            The court considered the moving papers.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses from defendant Sculptor Body Molding, Inc. to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three) is MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $768.91.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.¿ (C.C.P. § 2031.300(b).)¿ Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.¿ (C.C.P. § 2031.300, (a).)¿ Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.¿The moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.¿The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)  

Plaintiff propounded the Subject Discovery on May 18, 2023, via electronic service. (Panosian Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. 2.) Defendant’s responses were therefore due on June 20, 2023. (Ibid.) Defendant failed to respond by that date, necessitating this motion. (Ibid.)

However, on December 6, 2023, Defendant served responses to the subject discovery requests. As a result, the instant motion is moot.

Regarding monetary sanctions, given that Defendant did not serve responses until being prompted by the filing of this motion, the Court awards monetary sanctions in favor of moving Defendant in the reduced amount of $768.91, representing one hour at counsel’s hourly rate plus the filing fee.

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated: March 5, 2024

 

_______________________

ROLF TREU

Judge of the Superior Court