Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV45249, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45249    Hearing Date: March 27, 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

            Defendants Manuel Ignacio Escalera and Stephanie J. Zavala (collectively, Defendants) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Antonia Viera Mercado, Individually And As Guardian Ad Litem Of Jorge Luis Vasquez, A Minor (Plaintiff), to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG) and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  Plaintiff has 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).)  

            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).)  

Here, Defendants served the FROG and RPD on Plaintiff on February 24, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses to the FROG and RPD were thus due by March 30, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the FROG and RPD.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the FROG and RPD 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).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Vincent W. Davis, in the amount of $820, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $175 per hour, plus the filing fees of $120 at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Vincent W. Davis, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $820 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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