Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC671999, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC671999    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    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 Ivan Nava moves to compel responses from plaintiffs April Sandquist (“April”) and Kasandra Sandquist (“Kasandra”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to: (1) Demand for Inspection, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (3)  Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion.

            The Court notes that Defendant filed a single motion to compel both plaintiffs’ responses to three different discovery requests.  Instead, Defendant should have filed separate motions as to each to plaintiff and each discovery request for a total of six motions.  The Court will therefore order Defendant to pay an additional $300 in filing fees.  (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, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiffs on November 22, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by December 24, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the RPD, FROG and SROG.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to timely 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 April and Kasandra, each, and their counsel of record, Law Offices of Hess Panah & Associates, in the amount of $570, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $195 per hour, plus the filing fees of $180 (half of the total amount of fees - $360).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to the RPD, FROG and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300 and 2030.290, and orders Plaintiffs to serve verified responses to the RPD, FROG and SROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders. 

Further, the Court orders April and Kasandra, each, and their counsel of record, Law Offices of Hess Panah & Associates, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $570 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

In addition, the Court orders Defendant to pay an additional $300 in filing fees to the Clerk of the Court by August 31, 2022 and sets an Order to Show Cause re proof of payment on September 14, 2022 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.   

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