Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV49110, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 20STCV49110 Hearing Date: August 14, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to
Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Propounded
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
The Berman Law Group, APC
Resp. Party: None
The SROGs Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is ORDERED to serve answers, without objections, to
these discovery requests within 14 days of the issuance of this Order.
The Request for Sanctions is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On December
23, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Waddington, in propria persona, filed his
Complaint against Defendants The Berman Law Group, APC, Brett A. Berman, and
Seri Kattan-Wright on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s prior use of
Defendants’ legal services.
On February
9, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.
On January
24, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant The Berman Law Group, APC filed its
Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Michael Waddington.
On July 12,
2022, pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed his
Second Amended Complaint.
On July 21,
2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant amended his Second Amended Complaint to
substitute Doe 1 with Nigro Karlin Segal Feldstein LLC (“NKSF”).
On January
13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants NKSF’s and Irwin Nachimson’s Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The Court ordered Plaintiff and
Defendants NKSF and Irwin Nachimson to arbitrate and stayed the proceeding as
to those parties.
On July 19,
2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed its Motion to Compel Responses to
Special Interrogatories Propounded (“SROGs Motion”).
No opposition
or other response has been filed to the SROGs Motion.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
California Code of Civil
Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories,
special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days
after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the
parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a),
2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely
responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling
response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing
to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
For a motion to
compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its
discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to
whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach
v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a
party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to
grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko
Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
The court shall impose a monetary sanction under
Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for
interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails
to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are
just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a
terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In
lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿
II.
Discussion
a.
Motion
On March 20,
2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant served Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant with special
interrogatories (“SROGs”). (SROGs Motion, Exh. A, Proof of Service.)
Counsel
for Defendant/Cross-Complainant declares that no response has been served to
the SROGs, despite multiple extensions given. There is no evidence before the
Court that would indicate responses to the SROGs have been served.
The Court finds that
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant failed to timely respond to the SROGs.
The Court GRANTS the SROGs Motion.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant to serve answers, without
objections, to these discovery requests within 14 days of the issuance of this
Order.
b.
Sanctions
Given that
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is pursuing this matter in propria persona,
monetary sanctions would not be appropriate here. “Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a
priority for California courts.”¿¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.960(b).) further, to the pro per litigant,
“interrogatories, requests for admissions, law and motion proceedings, and the
like” are “baffling devices.”¿¿(Bruno v. Super. Ct. (1990) 219
Cal.App.3d 1359, 1363, quoting¿Burley v. Stein¿(1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 752,
755, fn. 3.)
In addition, the argument section of this motion is
one-page long. The only citation is to
CCP §2030.290. (See Motion, p. 4.) Defense counsel was admitted to the bar 21
years ago. (See https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/219626.) The Court does not believe that an
experienced attorney would need 2.5 hours to prepare this routine motion as
stated in his declaration. (See Rinka Declaration,
¶ 10.)
The Court DENIES the Request for
Sanctions.
III.
Conclusion
The SROGs Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is ORDERED to serve answers, without objections, to
these discovery requests within 14 days of the issuance of this Order.
The Request for Sanctions is
DENIED.