Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV19885, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19885    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Sanctions

Moving Party:  Defendant City of Long Beach

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Sanctions

Moving Party:  Defendant City of Long Beach

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:         Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Sanctions

Moving Party:  Defendant City of Long Beach

Resp. Party:    None

Defendant’s Motions to Compel are GRANTED.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for Defendant and against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,228.00.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

On February 15, 2023, the Court heard Defendant’s unopposed demurrer.  The Court stated at that time that it was troubled that Plaintiff had not opposed the demurrer.

Once again, Plaintiff has not filed any oppositions to the three motions to compel that are being heard today.  The Court finds that Plaintiff’s lack of participation in discovery to be even more troubling.  This is all the more so because Plaintiff’s responses to this discovery were initially due more than five months ago.

The Court would be interested in hearing from Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing if Plaintiff plans to pursue her litigation.

BACKGROUND:

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rosario Rivas filed her Complaint against Defendant City of Long Beach, Department of Health and Human Services on causes of action regarding Plaintiff’s former employment with Defendant.

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.

On March 2, 2023, Defendant City of Long Beach filed: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Sanctions (“FROGs Motion”); (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Sanctions (“SROGs Motion”); and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Sanctions (“RPDs Motion”). Defendant concurrently filed a proposed order with each of the motions.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition or other response to the three discovery motions.

On April 13, 2023, Defendant filed replies to three discovery motions, noting that no oppositions had been filed.

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.)

II.                Discussion

A.      Form Interrogatories Propounded

Defendant propounded the following form interrogatories (“FROGs”) upon Plaintiff: 200.1 through 200.6, 201.1, 201.3 through 201.7, 202.1 through 202.2, 203.1, 204.1 through 204.7, 205.1, 207.2, 208.1 through 208.2, 209.1, 210.1 through 210.6, 212.1 through 212.7, 213.1 through 213.2, 214.1 through 214.2, and 215.1 through 215.2. (FROGs Motion, Exh. 1.)

B.      Special Interrogatories Propounded

Defendant propounded the following special interrogatories (“SROGs”) Nos. 1-73 on Plaintiff.  (SROGs Motion, Ex. A.)

C.      Requests for Production of Documents Propounded

Defendant propounded requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) Nos. 1-32 on Plaintiff.  (RPDs Motion, Ex. 1.)

D.      Discussion

1.       The Discovery Requests

On September 29, 2022, Defendant propounded the above-listed discovery requests upon Plaintiff. (FROGs Motion, p. 1:19–21; SROGs Motion, p. 1:19–21; RPDs Motion, p. 1:19–21.) Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests. (FROGs Motion, p. 2:4–5; SROGs Motion, p. 2:4–5; RPDs Motion, p. 2:4–5.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. The Court does not have any evidence before it that Plaintiff has since responded.

Defendant moves the Court to order Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to these discovery requests within ten days. (FROGs Motion, p. 4:2–4; SROGs Motion, p. 3:18–19; RPDs Motion, p. 4:2–4.)

Plaintiff has neither responded to discovery, nor opposed this motion.  Plaintiff has therefore waived all objections, including those based on privilege.  (CCP §2031.300.) 

The Court GRANTS the motions to compel.

2.       Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally.

Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. The Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

For all three of the motions, Defendant’s Counsel declares that they spent a total of three hours, plus they anticipate spending another hour at the hearing, at a rate of $307.00 per hour. (See, for example, FROGs Motion, Decl. Masero, ¶ 9.)

The Court finds this rate and number of hours to be reasonable.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for Defendant and against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel in the amount of $1,228.00.

III.     Conclusion

Defendant’s Motions to Compel are GRANTED.

        Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for Defendant and against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,228.00.