Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00568, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00568    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00568 Ruthie Marie Parker v. Roman Hernandez Rodriguez

Tuesday, December 19, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S THREE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

I.        BACKGROUND

      This action arises from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to the first set of form and special interrogatories and request for production of documents by Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation dba Murray Company Mechanical Contractors (“Defendant”). Plaintiff served written discovery on June 19, 2023, but delayed filing these motions based on Defendant’s continued representations that responses would be forthcoming. Defendant provided amended, unverified responses, that were incomplete, but Defendant did not respond to further requests to meet and confer.  

      Defendant argues that the motion is moot since Defendant served verified second amended responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents on December 6, 2023. Plaintiff is pursuing this motion to recover sanctions. The lack of a verification is not a reason to impose sanctions since the verifications and substantive further responses have been provided. The Court should impose sanctions on Plaintiff.

      In reply, Plaintiff argues the second amended responses remain deficient and are not code compliant. The Court has jurisdiction to impose sanctions even if Defendant belatedly filed responses.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

      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).)

      Defendant served unverified initial responses to discovery on August 30, 2023. (Ex. K.) After the parties met and conferred, Defendant served verifications for the initial responses and served unverified amended responses on September 6, 2023. (Ex. M.)

      Plaintiff again sent letters regarding the incomplete amended responses and gave Defendant until September 20, 2023, to respond. (Motion Exs. N, O.) After Plaintiff filed these motions on October 4, 2023, Defendant served verified second amended responses on December 6, 2023. (Opp. Ex. C.)

      Defendant does not show any justification for failing to respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer in September, or for waiting three months to send verified, second amended responses until after Plaintiff filed these motions. An order compelling further responses is not necessary. Plaintiff, however, is entitled to an award of sanctions for fees and costs incurred to prepare the motions.  

      The Court finds that $250 per hour for two hours (reduced from four hours) to prepare each motion, and one hour to prepare the reply is reasonable. The Court imposes sanctions of $1,980 against Defendant, Roman Hernandez Rodriguez, and his counsel, Christensen Hsu Sipes, LLP and Cyrus Wilkes, Esq., jointly and severally as follows:

III.    CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s three motions are granted. Sanctions are payable to Plaintiff within 10 days.