Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV05029, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV05029    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Defendant Brian James Decker (Decker) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Katherine A. Walls (Plaintiff) to (1) Special Interrogatories, set two (SROG); (2) Supplemental Interrogatories, set one (SPROG); and (3) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents , set one (SRPD).  Decker seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

            Defendant Patterson Dental Supply Inc. (Patterson) moves separately to compel responses from Plaintiff to Special Interrogatories, set two (SROG).  Patterson requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.

            Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Patterson served the SROG on Plaintiff on May 13, 2022, via electronic service.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by June 15, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Patterson has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SROG.

Decker served the SROG, SPROG, and SRPD on Plaintiff on July 5, 2022, via electronic service.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by August 8, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Decker has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SROG, SPROG and SRPD.

Defendants Patterson and Decker (collectively, Defendants) request monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the SROG, SPROG and SRPD to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff on behalf of Patterson in the amount of $490, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $245 per hour.  Further, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff on behalf of Decker in the amount of $980, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $245 per hour.[1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the SROG, SPROG and SRPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the SROG, SPROG, and SRPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

The Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $490 to Patterson, by and through counsel for Patterson, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $980 to Decker, by and through counsel for Decker, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.