Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV30481, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30481    Hearing Date: August 10, 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

MOTION

            Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority moves to compel responses from plaintiff/cross-defendant Jose R. Torres (“Plaintiff”) to Special Interrogatories, set two (“SROG”). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.

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 SROG on Plaintiff on January 12, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s response was thus due by February 14, 2022.  Plaintiff served verified responses to the SROG on July 18, 2022.  (See Declaration of Jance M. Weberman, Exhibit 1.)  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has served untimely responses to the SROG, and denies the motion as moot.

            Notwithstanding, the issue of sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond remains before the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subdivision (c).)   “[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses…the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed”].)

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to provide a good faith attempt at an informal resolution of the discovery dispute.  Plaintiff’s argument is of no moment.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 does not require a good faith attempt at an informal resolution before bringing a motion when no responses were provided to a discovery request.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the SROG to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Jance M. Weberman A Professional Law Corporation, in the amount of $360, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion attend the hearing at $180 per hour. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies, in part, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the SROG as moot, but grants, in part, Defendant’s motion regarding monetary sanctions.  As  such, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Jance M. Weberman A Professional Law Corporation, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $360 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.