Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV30481, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30481    Hearing Date: January 6, 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

MOTIONS

            Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Jose Torres (“Jose”) and Catherine Torres (“Catherine”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to: (1) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”); and (2) Special Interrogatories, Set Three (“SROG”). Defendant also requests monetary sanctions. 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).)

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 SROGs and Supplemental RPDs on Plaintiffs on August 11, 2022. Plaintiffs’ responses to the SROGs and Supplemental RPDs were due by September 14, 2022.  (Ashour Decls., ¶¶2-3.)  Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiffs despite meet and confer efforts on September 19, 2022. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the SROGs and Supplemental RPDs.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the subject discovery requests is 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).) Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Jose and Catherine, and their counsel of record, Jance Weberman, jointly and severally, in the amount of $600 as to each Plaintiff, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $180 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the Supplemental RPDs and SROGs per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified responses to the Supplemental RPDs and SROGs, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff and their counsel of record, Jance Weberman, 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 is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.