Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV08856, Date: 2024-04-10 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: 22STCV08856    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             April 10, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.

Responding Party:      None

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One)

(2)   Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One)

(3)   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

(4)   Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was received.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to serve verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories (Set One), within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set One). The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to serve verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production (Set One), within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One). The court deems admitted the truth of the matters set forth in Requests for Admissions (Set One) to defendant Bolsabuy, Inc.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One), within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the reduced amount of $940.00 in attorney’s fees and costs for all four motions. The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay $940.00 to plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc., through its counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

///

///

Background

            Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. filed this action on March 11, 2022 against Defendants Jans Enterprises Corporation; Amazon Technologies, Inc.; Bolsabuy, Inc.; and El Monte Superstore, Inc., alleging six causes of action involving violations of Proposition 65, The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Proposition with respect to the manufacturing, distribution, promotion, or retailing of Cassava Celery Chips, which contain lead. (See Compl., ¶¶ 20, 27-33.)

            On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production (Set One); (2) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One).

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the (4) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). No opposition was received. On December 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of errata regarding the proof of service for the Motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One), Motion for Requests for Production (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One).

            On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

On March 4, 2024, the court continued the hearings from March 15, 2024 to April 10, 2024.

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.)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, the propounding 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. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) CCP § 2033.280(c) states, in relevant part: “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

Discussion

Merits of the Motions

Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. moves to compel responses from defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to (1) Special Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Requests for Production (Set One); and (3) Form Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff also moves to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One) to Bolsabuy, Inc.

The court finds Plaintiff sufficiently shows these motions should be granted. Plaintiff establishes it propounded these four sets of discovery on June 13, 2023. (Purcell Decls. re RFPs, RFAs, FROGs, and SROGs (collectively, “Purcell Decls.”), ¶ 2, Exh. A; Notice of Errata, Exh. A.) Defendant failed to respond by the July 18, 2023 deadline. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter to Defendant on August 18, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendant has not responded to date. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Thus, Plaintiff demonstrates Defendant provided no timely response to the four properly-served sets of discovery. Defendant never responded despite Plaintiff sending a meet-and-confer letter, which Plaintiff was not required to do. Defendant does not oppose these motions, thus failing to show why the court should not grant them.

Accordingly, the court rules as follows:

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to serve verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories (Set One), within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production (Set One). The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to serve verified responses, without objections, to Requests for Production (Set One), within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission (Set One). The court deems admitted the truth of the matters set forth in Requests for Admissions (Set One) to defendant Bolsabuy, Inc.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One). The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. to serve verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One), within 30 days of the date of this ruling.

 Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests per motion $760 in attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $350. (Purcell Decls., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff seeks to recover per motion two hours and the $60 filing fee. (Id.)

The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, but the time requested should be reduced because some hours do not apply. Plaintiff requests one hour for preparing the motion and one hour for reviewing opposition/preparing reply. (Purcell Decl., ¶ 6.) These motions are unopposed, so the one hour for reviewing opposition/preparing reply does not apply. The court finds the one hour for preparing the motion and the $60 filing fee are reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s total reduced recoverable amount in attorney’s fees and costs for one motion is $410 ([1 hour + $350/hour] + $60 filing fee) which would total $1,640 for four motions. However, this amount is excessive because these motions are simple, unopposed, and nearly identical. Therefore, the court reduces the total amount for all four motions to $940 ($240 total filing fees+ [2 hour + $350/hour]).

Accordingly, the court rules as follows:

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the reduced amount of $940.00 in attorney’s fees and costs for all four motions. The court orders defendant Bolsabuy, Inc. and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay $940.00 to plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc., through its counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

            It is so ordered.

Dated: April 10, 2024

_______________________

ROLF M. TREU

Judge of the Superior Court