Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV05966, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05966    Hearing Date: June 29, 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

            Defendant Estate of Walter Coblenz (Defendant) moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG) from Plaintiff Laverne Ambrose (Plaintiff). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

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 FROG on Plaintiff on June 30, 2022, via mail. Plaintiff’s response was thus due by August 4, 2022. As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the FROG.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the FROG to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Jesse Halpern, Esq., in the amount of $810, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour, plus the motion filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the FROG per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.  As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the FROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Jesse Halpern, Esq., jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $810, to Defendant by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

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