Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV03154, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03154    Hearing Date: January 23, 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

            Defendants Power Grade Inc., JDP Equipment Rental Inc., and Caesar Alexander Lopez (collectively, Defendants) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Pedro Pizano (Plaintiff) to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG); and (3) Request for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendants reply.

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendants filed a single motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD.  Instead, Defendants should have filed separate motions as to each discovery request for a total of three motions. The Court will therefore order Defendants to pay an additional $120 in filing fees, at $60 per motion.  (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).)

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 Plaintiff with the FROG, SROG and RPD on March 25, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses to the subject discovery requests were originally due by April 26, 2022.  Defendants granted Plaintiff five extensions to serve responses, with the final deadline on June 15, 2022. 

On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendants with the subject discovery responses.  However, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s discovery responses are insufficient because Plaintiff served only objections without any substantive responses.   As Plaintiff has responded to the FROG, SROG and RPD and Defendants find Plaintiff’s responses unsatisfactory, Defendants’ appropriate remedy is to move to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310 – which Defendants have not done here.  Further, as Defendants do not specifically contend that Plaintiff’s responses were untimely, the Court finds Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions to be without merit.

In opposition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendants and their attorney of record.  The Court finds that Defendants’ unsuccessful making of a motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG without substantial justification is an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (h), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendants, and their counsel of record, Christopher L. Patton and Rayelle D. Sabo of Patton Trial Group, in the amount of $750, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the opposition and attend the hearing at $250.00 per hour. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG and RPD. 

Further, the Court orders Defendants and their counsel of record, Christopher L. Patton and Rayelle D. Sabo of Patton Trial Group, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $750 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, on or before February 23, 2023. 

Finally, the Court orders Defendants to pay an additional $120.00 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court on or before February 6, 2023.

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