Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV08067, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV08067    Hearing Date: January 27, 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

            Defendants Christine Argonza and Camilo Argonza (collectively, Defendants) move to compel responses from Plaintiffs Felix Morales and Gladys Morales (collectively, Plaintiffs) to: (1) Supplemental Interrogatories (Supp. ROG) and (2) Supplemental Request to Produce Documents (Supp. RPD).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions to the motions.  Instead, Plaintiffs have filed a Declaration of Counsel, Hosep Yeppremian (Counsel) concerning 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, Defendants served the Supp. ROG and Supp. RPD on Plaintiffs on May 2, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by June 3, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs’ Counsel avers in his declaration that Plaintiff responded to the Supp. ROG and Supp. RPD on January 13, 2023.  However, Counsel fails to advance any documentary evidence of said responses, nor the attendant proofs of service demonstrating that the subject responses were served on Defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the Supp. ROG and Supp. RPD.

Defendants requests monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the Supp. RPD and Supp. ROG 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 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Hosep Yepremian, in the amount of $600, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $200 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the Supp. RPD and Supp. ROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified responses to the Supp. RPD and Supp. ROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Hosep Yepremian, jointly and several to pay $600 in monetary sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendant, 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.