Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV25014, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25014    Hearing Date: December 20, 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

            Defendant Sophie Dafesh (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Jonathan Arias, Dylan Arias, Norma Sotelo, and Anthony Sotelo (collectively, Plaintiffs) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  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).)  

Here, Defendant served the FROGs on Plaintiffs on May 18, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by June 1, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the FROGs.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the FROGs to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Hector Vega, in the amount of $490, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers and attend the hearing, at $215 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Hector Vega, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $490 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.