Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV11731, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11731    Hearing Date: March 8, 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

            Defendants Envision WC MB Auto, LLC dba Mercedes Benz of West Covina, and Envision Motors Management, LLC (collectively, Defendants) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Bi-Yueh Chou (Bi-Yueh) to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG); (3) Request for Production of Documents, set one (RPD). 

            Defendants further move to compel responses from Plaintiff Hsien Yu Chou (Hsien) to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); (2) Special Interrogatories, set two (SROG(2)); and (3) Request for Production of Documents, set two (RPD(2)). 

            Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the six motions.  Bi-Yueh and Hsien (collectively, Plaintiffs) have not filed oppositions.

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, Defendants served the FROG, SROG, and RPD on Bi-Yueh, and the FROG, SROG(2), and RPD(2) on Hsien, on August 10, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by September 13, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely response to the FROG, SROG, SROG(2), RPD and RPD(2).

Defendants requests monetary sanctions in connection with the six motions.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failures to timely respond to the FROG, SROG, SROG(2), RPD, and RPD(2) 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).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff, and each Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Brian T. Dunn, Esq. and Timaiah Smith, Esq. of Cochran Firm, in the amount of $944.95, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $190 per hour, plus the filing fees of $184.95, at $61.65 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, SROG(2), RPD, and RPD (2) per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and 2031.100.  As such, the Court orders Bi-Yueh to serve verified responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  The Court further orders Hsien to serve verified responses to the FROG, SROG(2), and RPD(2), without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

The Court orders each Plaintiff and each Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Brian T. Dunn, Esq. and Timaiah Smith, Esq. of Cochran Firm, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $944.95 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.