Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV39030, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39030    Hearing Date: December 19, 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

Defendant City of Downey (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Raul Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) (“SROG”).  Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendant replies. 

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 Plaintiff on August 10, 2022, by mail.  Plaintiff’s responses to the SROG were thus due by September 14, 2022.  Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s SROG by the September 14, 2022 deadline.  While Plaintiff represents in his opposition that he responded to Defendant’s SROG on October 12, 2022, a review of those responses reveals that those are not the SROG Defendant propounded on Plaintiff, and they are actually responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded by now dismissed defendant County of Los Angeles.  (See Arjonilla Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5, 12, Exhs. A & D.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s representation that he responded to the SROG is incorrect, and the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to the SROG.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion against Plaintiff and his attorney of record.  The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery request is an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Daniel Azizi of Dowtown L.A. Law Group, in the amount of $495, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $165 per hour.

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, as his grounds for the sanctions is that he served responses to the SROG, which as discussed above is incorrect.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

             Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Daniel Azizi of Dowtown L.A. Law Group, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $495 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.