Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV16078, Date: 2024-04-23 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: 23STCV16078    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $2,060.00 as and for Discovery Sanctions and Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron in Support Thereof

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hector Gonzalez

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One, and for Production of Documents and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $2,060.00 as and for Discovery Sanctions and Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron in Support Thereof

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hector Gonzalez

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Deem Admissions, Admitted for Failure to Respond to Request for Admissions, Set One and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $2,060.00 as and for Discovery Sanctions and Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron in Support Thereof

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hector Gonzalez

Resp. Party:    None

The FROGs Motions, RPDs Motions, and RFAs Motions are GRANTED. Defendant shall provide initial responses to the FROGs and RPDs within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez, in the amount of $180 per defendant. 

BACKGROUND:

        On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff Hector Gonzalez filed his Complaint against Defendant Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, Filipe Rodriguez, and First Choice Interlock, Inc. on causes of action arising from the Parties’ business contracts and interactions.

        On September 13, 2023, by request of the Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Defendant First Choice Interlock, Inc.

        On December 22, 2023, Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez filed their respective Answers to the Complaint.

        On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed three substantively-identical motions, each titled “Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One, and for Production of Documents and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $2,060.00 as and for Discovery Sanctions and Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron in Support Thereof” (“RPDs Motions”). Each of the RPDs Motions is directed at one of the non-defaulted Defendants.

        On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed three substantively-identical motions, each titled “Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $2,060.00 as and for Discovery Sanctions and Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron in Support Thereof” (“FROGs Motions”). Each of the FROGs Motions is directed at one of the non-defaulted Defendants.

        On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed three substantively-identical motions, each titled “Motion to Deem Admissions, Admitted for Failure to Respond to Request for Admissions, Set One and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the Sum of $2,060.00 as and for Discovery Sanctions and Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron in Support Thereof” (“RFAs Motions”). Each of the RFAs Motions is directed at one of the non-defaulted Defendants.

        On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Supplemental Proof of Service.

        On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed Declaration of Mark Henry Shafron Regarding Non-Receipt of Opposition to 9 Motions to Compel.

        No oppositions or other responses have been filed to the discovery motions.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

A.          Legal Standard for Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents

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. Pac. 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).)

B.      Legal Standard for Requests for Admission

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within 30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

If the party fails to serve a timely response, “the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The requesting party may then “move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

A court will deem requests admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Discovery Requests

Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories (“FROGs”), requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), and requests for admission (“RFAs”) on the non-defaulted Defendants on December 27, 2023. (FROGs Motions, Exh. A, Proof of Electronic Service; RPDs Motions, Exh. A, Proof of Electronic Service; RFAs Motions, Exh. A, Proof of Electronic Service.)

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel the non-defaulted Defendants to served responses to the FROGs and the RPDs. (FROGs Motions, p. 5; RPDs Motions, p. 6.) Plaintiff also moves the Court to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the RFAs. (RFAs Motions, pp. 6–8.)

According to Plaintiff’s Counsel, no responses have been served to the FROGs, RPDs, or RFAs. (FROGs Motions, Decl. Shafron, ¶ 4; RPDs Motions, Decl. Shafron, ¶ 4; RFAs Motions, Decl. Shafron, ¶ 4.)

        The Court has no evidence that the Defendants responded to these discovery requests.

        The Court GRANTS the FROGs Motions, RPDs Motions, and RFAs Motions. 

        Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez shall provide initial responses to the FROGs and RPDs within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order.

        Further, the RFAs served on each defendant are DEEMED ADMITTED.

B.      Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $2,060.00 in monetary sanctions for each of the motions.

The Court has no evidencethat there is a substantial justification for the failure to respond, or that there are other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose monetary sanctions. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel declares: (1) that they charge $400.00 per hour; (2) that they incurred five hours of work for each of these nine discovery motions; and (3) that they paid $60.00 in costs for each of these motions.

The Court finds that the hourly rates and costs incurred are reasonable. However, the attorney hours incurred for the motions are duplicative, and the motions are unlikely to have taken nearly as long as claimed. Each of the discovery motions (the FROGs Motions, RPDs Motions, and RFAs Motions) are, mutatis mutandis, identical.  All of these motions are boiler-plate motions, that have clearly been on counsel’s computer and used numerous times previously.  Further, there is no way that each motion took exactly 5.0 hours, as stated by Attorney Shafron. 

“If . . . the Court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked in the first place. To discourage such greed, a severer reaction is needful.”  (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 [cleaned up].)   “A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 990; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137; Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.)

The Court declines to award attorney's fees sanctions, but will award plaintiff’s counsel sanctions in the amount of the filing fees for each motion.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez, in the amount of $180 per defendant. 

III.     Conclusion

The FROGs Motions, RPDs Motions, and RFAs Motions are GRANTED. Defendant shall provide initial responses to the FROGs and RPDs within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for Plaintiff and against Defendants Ivan Alberto Rodriguez, Rodjach Investment Properties LLC, and Filipe Rodriguez, in the amount of $180 per defendant.