Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2022-01275282, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories
The motion of plaintiff Ronald Rodriguez Miranda for an order compelling defendant Marie Indra Louis to provide a verified further response to form interrogatories, set one, nos. 13.1 and 13.2 is MOOT as supplemental response were provided after the motion was filed. However, monetary sanctions of $550 are ordered against defendant and her attorney of record.
Under subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300, upon receipt of a response to a set of interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.
Under subdivision (d) of section 2030.300, the Court must impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
Plaintiff’s motion seeks supplemental answers to form interrogatories 13.1 and 13.2. The original discovery was propounded on 10/20/2022, with initial responses served on 12/5/2022. Meet and confer efforts proved unsuccessful. The subject motion was filed on 1/26/2023. Further responses were provided on 5/2/2023—some 3 ½ months later after the motion was filed. While compelling further discovery responses is now MOOT, sanctions for the delay and associated expense in filing the motion are appropriate.
Defendant filed opposition five calendar days before the hearing of this motion, instead of the required nine court days—and is not considered. Code of Civil Procedure 1005 (b), California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300 (b).
Monetary sanctions of $550 are imposed against defendant and her counsel of record.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Motion to Compel further Responses to Request for Production
The motion of plaintiff Ronald Rodriguez Miranda for an order compelling defendant Marie Indra Louis to provide a verified further response to request for production, set one, nos. 19 and 20, is MOOT as further responses have been provided. However, the Court orders monetary sanctions of $550 against defendant and her attorney of record.
Under subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, upon receipt of a response to a set of requests for production, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the set of requests if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general.
Under subdivision (b) of section 2031.310, a motion to compel a further response to a set of requests for production must comply with both of the following: (1) it must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the request; and (2) it must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.
Under subdivision (h) of section 2031.310, the Court must impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to a set of requests unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
Plaintiff’s motion seeks supplemental responses to requests 19 and 20. The original discovery was propounded on 10/20/2022, with initial responses served on 12/5/2022. Meet and confer efforts proved unsuccessful. The subject motion was filed on 1/26/2023. Further responses were provided on 5/2/2023—some 3 ½ months later after the motion was filed. While compelling further discovery responses is now MOOT, sanctions for the delay and associated expense in filing the motion are appropriate.
Defendant filed opposition five calendar days before the hearing of this motion, instead of the required nine court days—and is not considered. Code of Civil Procedure 1005 (b), California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300 (b).
Monetary sanctions of $550 are imposed against defendant and her counsel of record.
Plaintiff to give notice.