Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV06049, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06049    Hearing Date: December 7, 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 Calportland Company (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Guadalupe Del Carmen Andrade and Maria Andrade (collectively, Plaintiffs) to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); and (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  Plaintiffs have 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).)  

Here, Defendant served the FROG and SROG on Plaintiffs on June 4, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by July 8, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received verified responses from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely verified responses to the FROG and SROG.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to serve timely verified responses to the FROG and SROG to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, Fred Hanassab, Esq. of the Law Offices of Fred Hanassab, in the amount of $600 as to each Plaintiff, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $240 per hour, plus the motion filing fees of $120 at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the FROG and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiffs to serve verified responses to the FROG and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

The Court orders each Plaintiff and their counsel of record, Fred Hanassab, Esq. of the Law Offices of Fred Hanassab, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $600 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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