Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV01839, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01839    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            This case arises from a dispute between business partners. 

            Plaintiff Suzanne Tito (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendants Insight Multi-Strategy U.S. Partners, LLC (“Insight Multi-Strategy”); Insight Advisors; and Michael Tito (“Tito”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to serve verified responses, without objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). 

            Further, Plaintiff moves to compel Tito to serve verified responses, without objections to  Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”) and Requests for Production, Set One (“RPD”). 

            Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The motions are unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARDS

1.     Interrogatories

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).) 

2.     Requests for Production

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300, subd. (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The 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).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to demands for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original response to it on the party making the demand . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

ANALYSIS

1.     Discovery Requests

Plaintiff electronically served Defendants the FROG, SROG, and RPD on November 14, 2024.  (Mitch Decl. ¶¶ 2-4 and Exs. 1-3.)  As a result of a substantial injury Defendant’s counsel sustained around October 2024, the parties agreed to extend the deadline to respond to the FROG and SROG to December 20, 2024, and the RPD to January 2, 2025.  (Mitch Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants did not provide the responses by the agreed-upon deadlines, but through January 24, 2025, the parties continued negotiating potential extensions, after which point, Defendants’ counsel stopped responding.  (Mitch Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.)

As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to serve timely responses to FROG, and Tito has failed to serve timely responses to the SROG and RPD.

2.     Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Defendants’ failure to respond to the subject discovery requests 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).) 

            Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $960, which represents 2 hours of attorney time to prepare the motion regarding the FROG and attend the hearing at $450 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

            Further, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Tito, only, in the amount of $1470, which represents 3 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions regarding the SROG and RPD and attend the hearing at $450 per hour, plus the 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 Defendants to serve verified responses to the FROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  Further, the Court orders Tito to serve verified responses to the SROG, and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

The Court further orders Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $900 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the order regarding the FROG.  Further the Court orders Tito, only, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,470 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice the order regarding the SROG and RPD.   

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  March 4, 2025                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court