Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 24STCP00088, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00088    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Verified Answers without Objections to Special Interrogatories (No. 1) [and] Request for Sanctions

Moving Party: Petitioner National General Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:        Motion to Compel Verified Answers Without Objections to Demand for Identification and Production of Document (No. 1) [and] Request for Sanctions

Moving Party: Petitioner National General Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    None

The SROGs Motion is GRANTED.

The RPDs Motion is GRANTED.

        Respondent shall serve responses to the SROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.

The Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On January 9, 2024, Petitioner National General Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed its Petition to Open Superior Court File for Purposes of Obtaining Jurisdiction Over Uninsured Motorist Matter (“Petition”) against Respondent Ariana Hill (“Respondent”). The underlying issue in this matter involves an ongoing arbitration regarding an uninsured motorist claim.

On January 23, 2024, Petitioner filed its Proof of Service.

On February 7, 2024, Petitioner filed: (1) Motion to Compel Verified Answers without Objections to Special Interrogatories (No. 1) [and] Request for Sanctions (“SROGs Motion”); and (2) Motion to Compel Verified Answers Without Objections to Demand for Identification and Production of Document (No. 1) [and] Request for Sanctions (“RPDs Motion”). Petitioner concurrently filed a Proposed Order with each of the motions.

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

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. 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).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Discovery Requests

“[T]he uninsured motorist law grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations.” (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926, italics in original, citing Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).)

        Here, Petitioners moves the Court to compel Respondent to serve responses to special interrogatories (“SROGs”) and requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) that were served by Petitioner on Respondent on October 30, 2023. (SROGs Motion, p. 12:11–15 and Exh. A, p. 8; RPDs Motion, p. 12:13–17 and Exh. A, p. 5.)

        Respondent does not oppose or other respond to the motions.

        The Court does not have any evidence that would indicate responses to the SROGs and RPDs have been served. Rather, Petitioner’s Counsel declares that no such responses have been served. (SROGs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶ 13; RPDs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶ 13.)

        The Court GRANTS the SROGs Motion.

        The Court GRANTS the RPDs Motion. 

        Respondent shall serve responses to the SROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.

B.      Sanctions

Petitioner requests $661.65 in monetary sanctions for each of the motions.

Petitioner’s Counsel declares: (1) that they charge $150.00 per hour; (2) that they incurred four hours of work for each of the motions; and (3) that they incurred $61.65 in costs for each of the motions. (SROGs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶ 14; RPDs Motion, Decl. Calendo, ¶ 14.)

The hourly rate and costs incurred are reasonable, but the number of hours worked is not reasonable. Specifically, because the motions are nearly identical, the Court does not believe that counsel spent an identical $661.65 on each of the three motions.

“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.)

Further, Defendant is now pro per; her previous counsel has been suspended from the practice of law.

The Court DECLINES to award sanctions.   

III.     Conclusion

The SROGs Motion is GRANTED.

The RPDs Motion is GRANTED.

        Respondent shall serve responses to the SROGs and RPDs within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.

The Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.