Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV28724, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28724    Hearing Date: January 5, 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

            Defendant Lilly Hong Lau (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Eduardo Perez-Benitez, Eduardo Perez-Martinez, and Cezar Aguilar Martinez (collectively, Plaintiffs) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROGs), and Special Interrogatories, set one (SROGs).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions to the motions.

Preliminarily, the Court finds that Defendant filed one motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to the FROGs and SROGs.  Instead, Defendant should have filed one motion as to each discovery request propounded for a total of six motions.  The Court will therefore order Plaintiff to pay an additional $300 in filing fees, at $60 per motion filing fee.  (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)

Further, the Court notes that Defendant has failed to file a proof of service reflecting service of the FROG on Plaintiff Cezar Aguilar Martinez.  Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff Cezar Aguilar Martinez to the FROG as procedurally defective.

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 SROGs on Plaintiffs, and the FROGs on Plaintiffs Eduardo Perez-Benitez and Eduardo Perez-Martinez, on February 11, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by March 16, 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 SROGs, and Plaintiffs Eduardo Perez-Benitez and Eduardo Perez-Martinez have failed to serve timely responses to the FROGs. 

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiffs failure to timely respond to the SROGs, and Plaintiffs Eduardo Perez-Benitez and Eduardo Perez-Martinez 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 Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Avant Law Corporation, in the amount of $991.65, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $210 per hour, plus the filing fees of $361.65.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants in part Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the FROGs and SROGs per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiffs to serve verified responses to the SROGs, and orders Plaintiffs Eduardo Perez-Benitez and Eduardo Perez-Martinez to serve verified responses to the FROGs, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

The Court denies in part and without prejudice Defendant’s motion to compel responses from Plaintiff Cezar Aguilar Martinez regarding the FROG as procedurally defective.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Avant Law Corporation, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $991.65 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Finally, the Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $300 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before January 26, 2023.

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