Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV29282, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV29282    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    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 Sandra Coleman (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Christa Jahnke (Plaintiff) to: (1) Supplemental Interrogatory, set one (Supp. ROG) and (2) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set one (Supp. RPD).  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 Supp. ROG and Supp. RPD.  Instead, Defendant should have filed one motion as to each discovery request for a total of two motions.  The Court will therefore order Defendant to pay an additional $60 in filing fees.  (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 subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on January 26, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by March 1, 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 Supp. ROG and Supp. RPD.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Robert Montes, Jr. of Mass & Montes, LLP, in the amount of $600, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160 per hour, plus the motion filing fees of $120.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion 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 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Robert Montes, Jr. of Mass & Montes, LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $600 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Finally, the Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $60 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before October 25, 2022.  

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