Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV42887, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42887    Hearing Date: September 22, 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 West Hills Hospital moves to compel responses from plaintiff Louis Friedman to Special Interrogatories, set two (“SROG”).  Defendant requests monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 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 April 1, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s response was thus due by May 3, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received a response from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve timely a response to the SROG.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the subject discovery request 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, Law Offices of John R. Contos, Law Offices of Shawna S. Nazari, and Law Offices of Torres-Siegrist, in the amount of $735, which represents 3 hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $225 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of John R. Contos, Law Offices of Shawna S. Nazari, and Law Offices of Torres-Siegrist, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $735 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.