Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV46235, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46235    Hearing Date: September 27, 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 Daniel Silla moves to compel responses from plaintiff Lupe Sanchez to Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”) and Demand for for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  Plaintiff has 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 SROG and RPD on Plaintiff on December 10, 2021, electronically. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by January 11, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD and SROG.

The Court notes that while Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the subject motions, she did file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel Form Interrogatories.  In that opposition, Plaintiff contends the motions to compel are moot because Plaintiff provided verified responses to “all of the outstanding discovery” on June 28, 2022. (See Declaration of Anashe Karapetian, ¶ 6.)  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has served untimely responses to the SROG and RPD and will deny, in part, the motions as moot.[1]

Notwithstanding, the issue of monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the discovery requests remains before the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); 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”].) 

Hence, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the SROG and RPD to be abuses 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 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of Matt Koohanim, in the amount of $1020, which represents 3 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $300 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies, in part, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300 and 2030.290 as moot, but the Court grants, in part, Defendant’s motions regarding the monetary sanctions as requested.  

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of Matt Koohanim, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1020 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.