Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV34660, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34660    Hearing Date: January 26, 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

MOTION

            Defendant SCI California Funeral Services (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Iman Ammari (Plaintiff) to Request for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to 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, Defendant served the RPD on Plaintiff on June 24, 2022, electronically and via mail.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by July 29, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the RPD to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, in the amount of $500, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the RPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 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.