Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV31895, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31895    Hearing Date: June 22, 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 EAN Holdings, LLC (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Alaa Kandah and Nahla Alicia Kandah (collectively, Plaintiffs) to Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROG). 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).)  

Here, Defendant served the SROG on Plaintiffs on September 22, 2022 by email. Plaintiffs’ responses were due October 24, 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 SROG.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions. The Court

finds Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the SROG 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), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Law Office of Lawrence Hoodack, in the amount of $440, which represents 2 hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $190 per hour, plus the motion filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

            Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Law Office of Lawrence Hoodack. jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $440 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.