Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV27988, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27988    Hearing Date: January 18, 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

MOTION

            Defendant Starbucks Corporation (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Ashot Bznuni (Plaintiff) to (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROG); (2) Request for Production of Documents, set two (RPD); (3) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (SRPD); and (4) Supplemental Interrogatory (SPROG).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

            Preliminarily, the Court finds that Defendant filed one motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the SROG, RPD, SRPD, and SPROG.  Instead, Defendant should have filed one motion as to each discovery request propounded for a total of four motions.  The Court will therefore order Defendant to pay an additional $180 in filing fees, at $60 per motion.  (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)

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, Defendant served the SROG, RPD, SRPD and SPROG on Plaintiff on August 9, 2022, via mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by September 13, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SROG, RPD, SRPD and SPROG.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the SROG, RPD, SRPD, and SPROG 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 and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, K&L Associates, in the amount of $870, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $210 per hour, plus the motion filing fees of $240, at $60 per filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

The Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, K&L Associates, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $870 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $180 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before February 8, 2023.

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