Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV18590, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18590    Hearing Date: April 28, 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

            Plaintiff Russel Velez Yang (Russel) moves to compel responses from Defendant Teresa Hernandez (Defendant) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  Russel requests monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions. 

            Additionally, Plaintiff Teresita Yang (Teresita) moves to compel responses from Defendant to the FROG.  Teresita requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.

            Defendant has not filed oppositions to the motions.

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, Russel and Teresita (collectively, Plaintiffs) served the FROGs and RPD on Defendant on July 18, 2022, electronically.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by August 19, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiffs have not received verified responses from Defendant to the FROGs and RPD.  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the FROGs and RPD.

 Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions in connection with the three motions.  The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the FROGs 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 Defendant, and her counsel of record, Robert Carl of Chavez Law Group as follows with respect to each Plaintiff’s request:

·         Plaintiff Russel - in the amount of $870, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour, plus the filing fees of $120, at $60 per motion.

·         Plaintiff Teresita - in the amount of $560, which represents two 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 Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses to the FROGs and RPD per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  As such, the Court orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the FROGs and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Defendant, and her counsel of record, Robert Carl of Chavez Law Group, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $870 to Plaintiff Russel, by and through counsel for Plaintiff Russel, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Defendant, and her counsel of record, Robert Carl of Chavez Law Group, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 to Plaintiff Teresita, by and through counsel for Plaintiff Teresita, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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