Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC713113, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713113    Hearing Date: August 4, 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

MOTIONS

            Plaintiff Jenifer Galvez moves to compel responses from defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation to (1) Demand for Production of Documents, set two and (2) Demand for Production of Documents, set three (collectively, “RPD”).  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions.  Defendant has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

            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, Plaintiff served the subject discovery requests on Defendant on November 26, 2021, electronically.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by December 28, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Defendant’s 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); and 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $750, which represents 3 hours of attorney time to prepare the motions attend the hearing at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to the RPD per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, and orders Defendant to serve verified responses to the RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $750 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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