Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV25206, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25206    Hearing Date: December 9, 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

Plaintiff Francisco Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an Order compelling Defendant Francisco Cervantes Magana (“Defendant”) to serve a verified response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objections, within ten days of this Court’s Order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  Plaintiff additionally moves for an Order issuing monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Jacobs & Dodds, in a sum of $1,560.00, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

ANALYSIS

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: ¶(a) The 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 on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). . . . ¶(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).)  “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.290, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff has sufficiently presented evidence in order to award the relief requested.  Plaintiff demonstrates, on approximately April 7, 2022, Defendant was served with Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by and through electronic service upon Defendant’s counsel.  (Espinosa-Ulloa Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 3 at p. 5 [proof of service states Special Interrogatories, Set Two, were served by electronic service upon pauljacobs@irvinebusinesslawyers.com, the email address used by Defendant’s counsel in meet and confer correspondence]; Jacobs Decl., Ex. A [meet and confer correspondence submitted by Defendant in opposition to present Motion shows email used by Defendant’s counsel is pauljacobs@irvinebusinesslawyers.com].)  It follows, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant was required to serve a verified response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two no later than May 10, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a) [responding party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days of service], 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B) [time to respond extended by two court days where served by electronic transmission].)  Plaintiff demonstrates Defendant has failed to serve a response by this deadline, and at all.  (Espinosa-Ulloa Decl., ¶ 12 [“However, despite affording Defendant Magana a more-than-reasonable period of time with which to respond to the interrogatories at issue, counsel for Plaintiff has yet to receive Defendant Magana’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two as off the time of filing the instant Motion.”].)  Accordingly, Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated Defendant has failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.  Therefore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), Plaintiff is entitled to an Order compelling Defendant’s service of a verified response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objections.

Defendant has filed an Opposition, solely opposing Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.  Defendant concedes verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, have not been served.  However, Defendant urges this Court to refrain from issuing monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel on the ground the amount in sanctions requested by Plaintiff is excessive.  Defendant argues, while Plaintiff’s counsel contends five hours were spent preparing the present Motion, the Court should recognize Plaintiff concurrently prepared nearly identical motions to compel responses with respect to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Set Two.  Defendant additionally states that Plaintiff has requested approximately $1,560.00 in monetary sanctions with respect to all three motions to compel filed against Defendant (i.e., a total of $4,680.00 in monetary sanctions).  Defendant requests, in the event this Court awards monetary sanctions, a reduced amount to be awarded.

Further, in opposition, counsel for Defendant, Paul Jacobs (Jacobs) advances his declaration.  Jacobs intimates that contact with Defendant was lost for a period of time, but contact has been reestablished so that Defendant will be able to provide responses to the RPD.  (See Declaration of Paul Jacobs, ¶¶ 4-5.)

Nevertheless, the Court concludes an award of monetary sanctions in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Defendant is justified, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  The Court finds Defendant constitutes the party who “unsuccessfully . . . oppose[d]” the present Motion, and did not act with substantial justification in refusing to respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two.  (Ibid.)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $560, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250.00 per hour, plus the motion filing fee of $60. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to the Special Interrogatories, Set Two, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, and orders Defendant to serve a verified response to the Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court orders Defendant, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

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