Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00197, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00197    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00197 Maya Griffith, et al v. Motel 6, Inc., et al.

Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING THREE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM MAYA GRIFFITH TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING THREE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM MARSHALL TRUJILLO TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM NIKO GRIFFITH TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

      The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs checked into Defendants’ hotel on July 1, 2020, and sustained injury from bed bugs. Plaintiffs alleges claims for battery,[1] negligence, emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, nuisance, and breach of contract.

      Defendants move to compel further responses to the initial set of discovery served on each Plaintiffs, Marshall Trujillo and Maya Griffith, and further responses to form interrogatories served on Plaintiff, Niko Griffith. Plaintiffs asserted meritless objections after given an extension of two months to respond. Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants’ efforts to meet and confer. The Court should impose sanctions against each Plaintiff and counsel.

      Defendants served the motion on Plaintiffs’ counsel by electronic mail on July 28, 2023. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition by September 19, 2023 (nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., 1005(b).)

      A party can move to compel a further response to interrogatories or a request for production of documents where the party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, or an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a); § 2031.310(a)). Defense counsel attempted to meet and confer by letter dated June 26, 2023; however, Plaintiff did not respond. (Decl. of Gabriella Sternfeld, Ex. C, ¶ 4.)

      The separate statements in support of each motion reflect that Plaintiffs asserted objections to all discovery requests. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motions to explain the merits of any of the objections.

      Accordingly, Defendants’ seven motions to compel further responses from each Plaintiff are GRANTED. All Plaintiffs are ordered to provide further, verified and code-compliant responses to the discovery requests at issue without objection. Imposition of monetary sanctions is warranted. The Court finds that $225 per hour is a reasonable fee. As all seven motions are essentially identical, the Court finds that two hours to prepare three motions directed to Plaintiff Marshall Trujillo’s responses, and two hours to prepare three motions directed to Maya Griffith’s responses are reasonable. One hour to prepare one motion to compel Niko Griffith’s responses is reasonable.  Therefore, the Court imposes sanctions against each Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, and payable in 10 days to Defendants as follows: