Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV30481, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30481    Hearing Date: October 17, 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 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Catherine Torres (Catherine) to Special Interrogatories, set two (SROG); as well as responses from Plaintiff Jose R. Torres (Jose) to Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents, set two (RPD). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  Catherine opposes the Motion to Compel SROG, and Jose opposes the Motion to Compel RPD.

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 Catherine and Jose (collectively, Plaintiffs) on January 12, 2022, electronically. Their responses were thus due by February 16, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant had not received responses to the SROG and RPD from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the SROG and RPD.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s motions are moot because Plaintiffs provided verified discovery responses to the subject discovery requests on July 18, 2022. (Declaration of Jance M. Weberman, ¶ 2; Exhibit 1.)  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant’s motions to be moot.   

Although the Court finds Defendant’s motions to be moot, the question of sanctions nevertheless remains before the Court. Plaintiffs argue sanctions should be denied because of Defendant’s failure to meet and confer with Plaintiffs prior to filing.  The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally where the party upon whom discovery requests have been served fails to serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 390, 411.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the SROG and RPD 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, Jance M. Weberman, in the amount of $540, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $180 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies in part Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the SROG and RPD as moot. 

Further, the Court grants in part Defendant’s motions regarding monetary sanctions and orders Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Jance M. Weberman, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $540 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.