Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV34939, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34939    Hearing Date: March 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

            Plaintiff Adil Mehta (Plaintiff) moves to compel responses from Defendant Amanda Kay Hobson (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG) and Requests for Production, set one (RPD).  In addition, Plaintiff moves to deem admitted the truth of the matters in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA).   Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  Defendant has 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).)  

            Similarly, under 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).)  

            Further, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . .  [t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Here, Plaintiff served the FROG, SROG, RPD and RFA on Plaintiff on May 27, 2022, electronically.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by June 29, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD and RFA.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the FROG, SROG, RPD and RFA to be an abuse 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 Defendant, and her counsel of record, Robert Ong of Chavez Legal Group, in the amount of $1,490, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour, plus $240 in filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the truth of matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Defendant.

Further, the Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, Robert Ong of Chavez Legal Group, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,490, 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.