Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV40776, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40776    Hearing Date: September 28, 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

            Defendants Michael Hoffman and Sophia Elena Hoffman (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Cynthis Sakaes (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Special Interrogatories, set two (“SROG 2”); (2) Supplemental Interrogatories, set one (“SUPP ROG”); and (3) Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents, set one (“SUPP RPD”).  In addition, Defendants move to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition.  Defendants also request monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.[1]

ANALYSIS

1. MOTIONS TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY

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, Defendants served the SROG 2 on Plaintiff on June 4, 2021 by electronic transmission; thus, Plaintiff’s responses to the SROG 2 were due by July 8, 2021.  Defendants served the SUPP ROG on Plaintiff on January 14, 2022 by electronic transmission; thus, Plaintiff’s responses were due by February 16, 2022.  Defendants served the SUPP RPD on Plaintiff on January 14, 2022 by regular mail; thus, Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 18, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SUPP RPD, SUPP ROG and SROG 2.

1. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) 

Here, on August 28, 2021, Defendants served a deposition notice on Plaintiff which noticed the deposition for December 2, 2021.  Thereafter, on January 14, 2022, Defendants served deposition notice on Plaintiff which noticed the deposition for February 15, 2022.  Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on either December 2 or February 15.  And as of the date of filing of the motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition. 

1. MONETARY SANCTIONS

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the SROG 2, SUPP RPD and SUPP ROG, and failure to appear for deposition, to be abuses of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1115, which represents 5 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $175 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the SUPP RPD, SUPP ROG and SROG 2 per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the SUPP RPD, SUPP ROG and SROG 2, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, unless Defendants stipulate otherwise.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1115 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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