Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00067, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00067    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: A

22CMCV00067 Batchelor Family Trust v. Section 8 Management, Inc., and Timothy McDaniel

Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY MCDANIEL, & FOR TIMOTHY MCDANIEL TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

The complaint, filed on March 15, 2022, alleges claims for intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally collected funding issued by the Los Angeles County Development Authority that was intended for rental payments for Plaintiff’s real property. Defendants purportedly agreed to manage Plaintiff’s real property and act as Plaintiff’s liaison with the Development Authority.

Defendant, Timothy McDaniel (“McDaniel”), filed his answer on May 3, 2022, as a self-represented litigant. The court struck the answer of Defendant, Section 8 Management, Inc. (“Section 8”) as the corporation was not represented by counsel and could not represent itself. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.

On August 16, 2022, the court DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses by Defendant, Timothy McDaniel (“McDaniel”) and to compel his appearance at deposition on procedural grounds. Plaintiff did not submit evidence of the discovery served on Defendant or Plaintiff’s purported emails requesting responses. Plaintiff also did not submit any documentary evidence of the deposition notice served on McDaniel or Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempts to meet and confer as required by statute. Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450 subp. (b)(2). Plaintiff filed this motion on August 12, 2022 seeking the same relief with respect to McDaniel, and including the relevant exhibits. McDaniel did not file an opposition.

Plaintiff asserts that McDaniel agreed to appear for deposition on May 18, 2022, which he later cancelled, citing an absence due to a “sabbatical.” Declaration of Joshua Tey, ¶ 5, Ex. A. Plaintiff subsequently served a deposition for McDaniel’s deposition. Id., Ex. B. McDaniel later informed Plaintiff of his ability for deposition during the week of July 11, 2022. Tey Declaration, ¶ 6. However, McDaniel subsequently failed to respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s requests for confirmation. Tey Declaration, ¶ 6, Ex. D.

If a party fails to appear for a deposition after service of a deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the notice. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a). Plaintiff has shown good cause for McDaniel’s deposition and document request since he is a party. Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450(b)(2).

            On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories on McDaniel by mail. Tey Declaration, Ex. E. Plaintiff sent a letter on June 15, 2022, inquiring about McDaniel’s failure to respond. Id., Ex. F. Despite Plaintiff’s attempt to meet and confer, Defendant has not served responses. Tey Declaration, Ex. 8.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for response to interrogatories, the court has authority to compel a response. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (b). Untimely responses result in a waiver of objections. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a), § 2031.300(a). Defendant did not serve responses to Form Interrogatories. Tey Declaration, ¶ 6.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel McDaniel’s appearance at deposition and produce documents responsive to the document request is GRANTED. McDaniel is ordered to appear for his deposition and to provide verified response and production of documents without objection on a date duly noticed by Plaintiff.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel McDaniel’s responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objection to the Form Interrogatories within 10 days.

            Plaintiff’s request for imposition of sanctions against McDaniel is GRANTED for Defendant’s refusal to submit to authorized discovery requests without substantial justification which constitutes abuse of the discovery process. Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 subp. (d). The court has considered the declaration of Joshua Tey in support of the request for sanctions. As Defendant did not file an opposition, and Plaintiff did not file a reply brief, the court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,460.00 ($365.00/per hour x 4 hours), payable by Defendant McDaniel to Plaintiff within 10 days.