Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC713889, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713889    Hearing Date: August 18, 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. 

NOTE:  3 TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 1

MOTIONS

            Defendants Brooke Natalie Ventura and Mazel Bordenave (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel responses from plaintiff Michael Allen Carter to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, set three (“RPD”); (2) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set two (“Supp. RPD”); (3) Special Interrogatory, set three (“SROG”); and (4) Supplemental Interrogatory, set two (“Supp. ROG”).  Defendants seek monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff 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, Defendants served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on January 24, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 25, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG.

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’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), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, in the amount of $1,140, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $180 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG, per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,140 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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

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 - NO. 2

MOTIONS

            Defendants Brooke Natalie Ventura and Mazel Bordenave (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel responses from plaintiff Charlene Lavern Mosley to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, set three (“RPD”); (2) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set two (“Supp. RPD”); (3) Special Interrogatory, set three (“SROG”); and (4) Supplemental Interrogatory, set two (“Supp. ROG”).  Defendants seek monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff 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, Defendants served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on January 24, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 25, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG.

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, in the amount of $1,140, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $180 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG, per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,140 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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

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 - NO. 3

MOTIONS

            Defendants Brooke Natalie Ventura and Mazel Bordenave (collectively, “Defendants”) move to compel responses from plaintiff Preston Michael Carter, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Charlene Lavern Mosley, to: (1) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set two (“Supp. RPD”); (2) Special Interrogatory, set three (“SROG”); and (3) Supplemental Interrogatory, set two (“Supp. ROG”).  Defendants seek monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff 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, Defendants served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on January 24, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 25, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG.

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’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), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, in the amount of $900, which represents seven hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $180 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG, per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the Supp. RPD, SROG, and Supp. ROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $900 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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